When HOAs Lose Adverse Possession Claims: Lessons From Stoney Meadows v. Ten Kley

Imagine your quiet cul-de-sac suddenly becomes the center of a heated property dispute. That happened to the litigants in Stoney Meadows Homeowners Association v. Ten Kley, a recent Washington Court of Appeals case. That lawsuit highlights how even long-term use and maintenance of land may not suffice to win an adverse possession claim. Are you a property owner, developer, or HOA board member? Are you concerned about boundary lines, easements, or who really owns that strip of land your community has used for decades? Then Stoney Meadows merits careful review.

Facts: In 1989, developers platted the Stoney Meadows subdivision, creating a private road and a 1-foot "reserve strip" at its northern edge. The HOA later received a deed to "Lot 17/1" as common area—but not to the private road. Over the years, the HOA paved part of the road, added curbs, installed a streetlamp with holiday decorations, mowed the grassy "green space" at the end, and even placed "Private Road" and "No Outlet" signs. They acted like owners. But when neighbors Reid and Eike Ten Kley bought adjacent land to the north and obtained an easement from prior owners to use the private road for access, the HOA sued—claiming it had gained ownership of both the road and the reserve strip through adverse possession (and alternatively, through the original deed).

The trial court rejected the private road claim—but granted the tiny 1-foot reserve strip. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed: The HOA did not adversely possess the private road, even after more than 20 years of use. Why? Because adverse possession requires "hostile" use—meaning the claimant uses the land as if the claimant owns it and against the true owner's permission. Here, the court found the HOA's actions—like paving and mowing—remained consistent with easement rights that other lots already held over the road. The HOA did not act "hostile;" it merely maintained a road that everyone possessed permission to use. Moreover, the original developer never clearly transferred the road to the HOA in writing—the paper title remained with the original owners (or their successors), who later granted the easement to the Ten Kleys.

The takeaway? Good intentions and routine upkeep do not suffice. To prevail on adverse possession in Washington, a party needs clear, open, exclusive, and hostile control for 10 continuous years—and proof that the use exceeded already-permitted use. The HOA won the 1-foot strip only because no one claimed it, and prior owners defaulted—but the HOA lost the far-more valuable private road.