Protect your property rights!

The following describes how the Wahkiakum Sheriff and Courts have failed to protect a local property owner against aggressive action from a new neighbor who lives in Portland. If we don't change this precedent you could be next. We are calling for a grass roots movement to stop this abuse.

Many island properties have existed in their present configuration for many years. With survey equipment less exact years ago and other factors the lines may be off on many of the islands properties. This may hold true for other areas within Wahkiakum County as well. The property in question here, the ownership of which is being contested based on a new survey, has existed in it's present configuration for over 50 years.

This is the third property that we know of in the last few years where someone from outside the area has purchased a property in Wahkiakum County, had a new survey done, and from that new survey has attempted to alter the property line that has existed for many decades.

The estimated cost to protect a propery through the courts is between $50,000 and $100,000. A trust fund has been established to help with legal costs of protection of historic uses and long established property lines for properties in Wahkiakum County. This fund would assist property owners with issues similar to the following property. To donate to the fund go to Reclaim Our Rights .org.

 

The property in question is located at 220 W Little Island Road. The current owner bought it a number of years ago with the intention of using it in his retirement and being a contributing member of the community. The owner has not been able to use it or to continue the repairs to the dock due to the aggressive actions of the new owners of the neighboring property. They reportedly live in Portland and bought the neighboring property as a place to tie up their Bayliner boat.  Speculation is that they found out that it was not going to be easy to get the permits to put in a new dock and was going to be expensive so they decided it would be easier to steal part of their neighbors dock. (And so far the Sheriff's Office and court judges and commissioners are letting them get away with it.)

There are a number of legal foundations to keep in mind here. In Washington State once a property is openly used for 10 years it is considered to be owned through adverse possession. The Wahkiakum sheriff's office refuses to recognize that or to propect the property owner from harrassment or potential harm.

There are property rights principles that have existed for thousands of years that should have provided protection against harassment of the owner of the property and of an existing use including:

• Right To Implied Warranty

• Quiet Enjoyment

• Adverse Possession

• And Others

 

---

 

Here Are More Details

The property is at 220 W Little Island Road. The property has been openly identified, taxed and used as such for over 50 years. The property includes a filled parking area, deck, stairs, shed, pier, ramp, pilings and docks.

The property has been used in its current configuration for over 50 years.
The following site plan shows the property as it has been used for many decades.


Some items of note:

• The SE end of the dock plus 5’ lines up with the survey marker and then there is about another 5’ to Chris Doumit’s dock. The combined approximately 10’ gives each of us room to maneuver a small boat to the inside of our docks.
• The NW end of the dock plus 5 to 10 feet for moving a boat around lines up with the power poles and water shutoff.
• All components detailed in the sketch existed for decades. The houseboat burned down a few years ago. The hope still is to rebuild it.

Here are historic photos which show the consistent usage.
July 2000
July 2012  
March 2016
October 2018  


The following photos show where the dock for the neighboring property existed and when it was removed. Note that their dock was located approximately 100+ feet NW of the dock at 220 W Little Island Rd which they are now trying to claim a part of. The first photo shows the neighbor’s dock actively being used in August 2005. The second photo shows it not actively used but still existing July 2010. The third photo shows the dock having been lost or removed and no longer existing as of November 2011.



In the following image from July 2012 you can see that the neighbor is parked up by where their dock used to be and not anywhere close to the filled parking of the subject property. On the subject property you can also see how the recreational vehicle that was used when the owner was at the property extended beyond the parking area into the area by the water shut off. Note that with the nature of the recreational vehicles and boats the water shut off was being accessed with some frequency.


For many of the properties along the outside of the dike there is no parking unless surrounding rock and fill are brought in and a parking area created. The subject property includes a filled parking area, clearly created and utilized as part of this property for many decades. A part of that parking area is part of what the neighbor wants to claim.

The subject property also includes a shed, pier, ramp, pilings and the docks. Without the pier, ramp, pilings and docks I would not have purchased the property. The pier, ramp, pilings and docks all attest to the many years that this property has been used in its current configuration. Pilings have many decades of useful life and yet these are old enough to where they need attention. In fact, one of the pilings broke off a year ago due to the deterioration. The docks also attest to their age and years of use.

The area of the subject property that the neighbor is disputing includes my electrical service meter and panel and outlets and hookups as well as my water service, water lines, water connections and on/off valves. These have been located, used and frequently accessed in those same places or areas for decades.
 




The property has existed and been used as a cohesive unit for many decades.




Another factor that influenced my purchase of the property was the fact that the Wahkiakum County Assessor’s Office had been taxing the property as a cohesive unit ever since the pilings were put in and the pier, ramp, dock and shed were built.

The following images are from the Assessor’s records. The first one shows a valuation done in 2014 which included the pilings, dock and ramp. The second one shows a sketch for the property which includes the pier, ramp and docks. Following that are three photos from the Assessor’s file showing the shed, docks and boathouse as being part of the property. (Note that the boathouse was given its own parcel number as they can be moved.) These photos are date stamped 03/19/2014 and it is evident from the photos that these are not new improvements in 2014 but older improvements that had been considered to be part of this property for many years.






Another item in the Assessor’s Property record was a copy of the Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit from when the property was transferred to Wynn Showalter, whom the current owner purchased the property from. Note that the description indicates that it includes a float dock and ramp. (There was a temporary deed transferring the property from Wynn to his son and then to the current owner but the negotiations for the property started with Wynn after the fire burned down the houseboat.)


Another issue is that the new property line that the neighbor wants to establish would split the pier, ramp and dock. Once those portions are disconnected (cut) from what would remain as the subject property they would not be usable and/or would collapse into the slough. In addition those structures would now be in the setbacks and would likely need to be be removed. The remaining structure of the disconnected sections of dock would not be enough to keep the tides from carrying the docks away. Their section would be connected to only one set of pilings and would be prone to being turned and broken apart by the tides. The subjects remaining section would also have to be shortened significantly as it would extend too far beyond the pilings which would exert too much pressure on the pilings. This would result in the removal of the main section of the dock and greatly dimmish its utility.

The following photo shows the portion that they want to claim.

This second photo is from a different angle showing how the line that they want to claim goes right down the middle of the pier, ramp, dock and pilings.


If the court takes away the pier, ramp & dock it greatly diminishes the value of the subject property. The subject property was purchased with a pier, ramp and dock and they were paid for and developed and taxed as part of the subject property. If the court takes away this part of the subject property then the owner should be given adequate time, without any interference or harassment from the neighbor to remove the pier, ramp & dock. They were developed as part of the subject property. 

The pier, pilings and docks have been part of the subject property for decades. Neighbors have attested to the fact that the disputed areas have been openly used as part of the subject property in its current configuration for over 50 years. Before buying the property the current owner looked through aerial photographs going back several decades to confirm the configuration and use of the property as well as the Assessor and tax records including valuation work ups, documents and photographs.

The attorneys that the owner has spoken to have all said, absolutely, at this point regardless of any survey you own the property BUT it will cost you $100,000 to enforce that in court.

This is nothing more than a land grab (or in this case, a dock grab) by the neighbor whose property no longer includes a dock.

We need to protect our property rights!