Lundgren v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, 389 P.3d 569

Background

Lundgrens and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe own adjacent parcels; a longstanding visible fence marks the disputed strip south of the Tribe's lot.
Lundgrens (and predecessors) used and maintained the disputed strip since at least 1947 and claim title by adverse possession before the Tribe purchased the adjoining parcel in 2013.
After purchase the Tribe asserted record title to the entire deeded parcel and notified the Lundgrens; Lundgrens sued in superior court to quiet title and sought injunctive relief.
The Tribe moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(1) (sovereign immunity) and CR 12(b)(7)/CR 19 (failure to join a necessary and indispensable party).
Trial court denied dismissal, granted summary judgment to the Lundgrens finding adverse possession, and the Supreme Court affirmed: in rem jurisdiction and CR 19 do not require dismissal where the absent sovereign has no protectable interest because title vested by adverse possession before the Tribe’s acquisition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may proceed despite Tribe's sovereign immunity in a quiet title (in rem) action	In rem jurisdiction over property makes personal jurisdiction over Tribe unnecessary; sovereign immunity irrelevant when Lundgrens acquired title before Tribe bought land	Sovereign immunity bars suit absent waiver; in rem claim does not avoid threshold jurisdictional limits including immunity	Court: In rem jurisdiction permits state court to adjudicate ownership of the res; sovereign immunity does not bar this in rem quiet title where Tribe has no protectable interest because adverse possession vested earlier
Whether Tribe is a "necessary" party under CR 19(a) whose joinder is required	Lundgrens: Tribe is not necessary because they seek to retain land they already acquired by adverse possession prior to Tribe's purchase	Tribe: Record title creates a legally protected interest; disposition in its absence may impair its ability to protect that interest	Court: Tribe is not a necessary party here because a merit-based CR 19 inquiry shows no adverse impact on a sovereign interest—title vested in Lundgrens before Tribe purchased
Whether joinder is feasible given sovereign immunity and whether CR 19(b) requires dismissal	Lundgrens: Joinder is not required; dismissing would unjustly strip plaintiffs of remedy; sovereign immunity cannot be used to bar adjudication	Tribe: Joinder not feasible (immunity); if necessary party cannot be joined, CR 19(b) requires dismissal because sovereign is indispensable	Court: Joinder is infeasible but CR 19(b) does not compel dismissal where absent party lacks an interest that would be adversely affected; equity favors proceeding
Whether summary judgment was appropriate on adverse possession	Lundgrens: Undisputed facts (open, notorious, exclusive, hostile possession for statutory period) entitle them to judgment	Tribe: There are material disputes about notice/knowledge that preclude summary judgment	Court: Facts undisputed and satisfy adverse possession elements; summary judgment for Lundgrens affirmed

Key Cases Cited

County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (federal in rem jurisdiction over land can be exercised despite tribal ownership)
Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 130 Wn.2d 862 (state superior court may exercise in rem jurisdiction to partition and quiet title to fee‑patented land even after tribal acquisition)
Smale v. Noretep, 150 Wn. App. 476 (court may continue quiet title in rem where plaintiff alleges adverse possession predating tribal purchase)
Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wn.2d 214 (CR 19 three‑step analysis and guidance on joinder/sovereign immunity)
Gorman v. City of Woodinville, 175 Wn.2d 68 (adverse possession that vests pre‑acquisition by government permits quiet title against the government)
ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell, 112 Wn.2d 754 (elements required to establish adverse possession)