Susan Wohlleben, V. Joan And James Jahnsen, 58525-1

Susan Wohlleben purchased property in 2017 and later learned a concrete kitchen landing encroached about 1.5 feet onto the neighboring Jahnsens’ property.
After being denied use of a shared driveway by the Jahnsens and their predecessors, Wohlleben filed a lawsuit seeking title to the encroaching area by adverse possession and asserting other related claims.
The superior court dismissed all of Wohlleben's claims, awarded attorney fees to the Jahnsens, and ordered Wohlleben to pay these fees into the court registry pending appeal.
The Court of Appeals initially remanded the adverse possession claim regarding the kitchen landing for further factual development, questioning whether the mere presence of the structure satisfied all adverse possession elements.
On remand, new evidence indicated the previous owner (Nelson) barely used the kitchen landing; based on this, the trial court again dismissed Wohlleben’s claim and recalculated attorney fees, reducing them by 5% for the kitchen landing issue.
Wohlleben appealed the new judgment, the calculation of attorney fees, and the award of post-judgment interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse possession of kitchen landing	Existence of encroaching structure is sufficient for adverse possession as a matter of law	Mere existence of structure is insufficient; must show actual possession/use	Adverse possession claim dismissed; structure alone is not enough
Reduction of attorney fees on remand	5% reduction is inadequate; a lodestar analysis should be used to determine reduction	5% reduction is reasonable given minor role of kitchen landing issue; work overlapped issues	5% reduction was reasonable; court did not abuse discretion
Award of interest on attorney fees from original judgment	No interest should accrue after tendering funds to court or after partial reversal on appeal	Interest should run from original judgment as the court simply modified the award	Interest should accrue only from judgment after remand, not original judgment
Attorney fees on appeal	Plaintiff is entitled to fees	Defendants are entitled to fees as prevailing party	Jahnsens awarded fees; Wohlleben denied fees

Draszt v. Naccarato, 146 Wn. App. 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (existence and use of encroaching structure as evidence of adverse possession)
Shelton v. Strickland, 106 Wn. App. 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (requirements for proving adverse possession)
Reitz v. Knight, 62 Wn. App. 575 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (treatment and maintenance of property in adverse possession context)
Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., 115 Wn.2d 364 (Wash. 1990) (accrual of interest after judgment is reversed and modified on remand)
Deep Water Brewing, LLC v. Fairway Resources, Ltd., 170 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (accrual of interest when modified award after an appeal)