Howard v Kunto
Author:- Sam Biers

Facts: In 1932 McCall resided in the house Kuntos reside in.  McCall had a deed that described a 50 ft wide parcel on the shore of Hood Canal.  The 50 feet described is not the 50 ft where the house sits, but the adjacent 50 ft lot.  Other property owners are similarly situated but not parties herein.  1946 a survey affirmed the description and a dock was built for the Kuntos.  Their neighbors the Howards wished to convey one-half of their land to the Yearlys.  Their survey revealed the errors now before the court. Between the Howards and the Kuntos resided the Moyers.  Howard conveyed land to Moyer, Moyer conveyed the land Kuntos house stood to Howard. 

Issue: Whether adverse possession is defeated by physical use during summer occupancy, and whether a person receiving tract b while mistaking it for a can adversely possess b?

Holding: Yes a person receiving tract b while mistaking it for a, can adversely possess b.

Rule: Privity= A succession of trespass, or adverse possession where successive owners, transfer directly or establish a personal connection as to possession.

Tacking-If one continues, directly, in adverse possession of land, the period of time continues to toll.

Procedure: Trial ct ruled that Kuntos could not adversely possess because they only resided there for one year and the law states 10 years to adv. Poss. Reversed.

Ct. Rationale:Long periods of occupancy by those who in good faith received an erroneous deed description.  The occupancy of the tract of land in question during the summer months for more than 10 years by defendant and his predecessors, with the improvements, constituted uninterrupted possession.