Tim Helgren and Sherry Helgren v. Lance Brown
60078-1
Wash. Ct. App. UMay 20, 2025Background
- Timothy and Sherry Helgren purchased property in Olympia, Washington in 2007, adjacent to property owned by Paul Sanders (later by Lance Brown);
- A chain link/cyclone fence and a line of trees informally separated the Helgrens' and Sanders' properties, each family treating the tree line as a boundary;
- The Helgrens regularly maintained and used a disputed beach area and a parking strip (planting/flower bed area) that technically fell within the neighboring lot, based on a later survey;
- After Brown acquired Sanders’ property in 2021, a survey discovered various encroachments by the Helgrens (fence, deck, drain field) onto Brown’s land;
- Helgrens sued for adverse possession of the beach area and parking strip after Brown removed part of the fence and did not replace it;
- The trial court ruled against the Helgrens for the beach area and parking strip, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Helgrens met the adverse possession requirements for both areas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse possession of beach | Helgrens openly, exclusively used & maintained beach | No significant improvements, tree line unclear | Court found Helgrens' use consistent with ownership—title quieted |
| Adverse possession of parking strip | Helgrens maintained parking strip openly & exclusively for 10+ years | Not consistently maintained, fence post didn’t mark line | Evidence supported continuous, exclusive Helgren use—title quieted |
| Sufficiency of trial evidence | Evidence (testimony, photos) showed open/notorious & exclusive use | Contradicted consistency, questioned improvements | Court found evidence overwhelmingly favored Helgrens’ position |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees | (No response by Brown) | Court awarded Helgrens attorney fees under RCW 7.28.083(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. City of Woodinville, 175 Wn.2d 68 (Wash. 2012) (sets out elements of adverse possession claim in Washington)
- ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell, 112 Wn.2d 754 (Wash. 1989) (defining adverse possession requirements)
- Riley v. Andres, 107 Wn. App. 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for open and notorious possession and boundary demarcation)
- Lilly v. Lynch, 88 Wn. App. 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (standard for exclusivity in adverse possession)
- El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak, 60 Wn.2d 847 (Wash. 1962) (statute of limitations requirements for adverse possession)