Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Washington State Bar - "A Good Faith Attack on Land Thieves"

Wow... this is a must read, straight from the Washington State Bar: "A Good Faith Attack on Land Thieves" (

Here, Washington attorney, Robert W. Zierman makes an excellent argument in changing Washington's adverse possession law. In particular, Zierman argues in favor of bringing back a "good faith" requirement.
... the complete elimination of good faith may have also been a step too far.

This is critical, as having a "good faith" requirement would help deter greedy land grabbers, like Peter Dodsondance, from knowingly stealing others' property.

Kudos to attorny Robert W. Zierman in making a moral stand for what is right. It's not often that land attorneys support changing adverse possession laws, and it's great to see this appear in the Washington State Bar. Hopefully, more attorneys, legislators and people will see that adverse possession laws need to be changed!


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Ohio laws for adverse possession is the most flexible as I have experienced and read in the U.S Movements such as Washington State Colorado, New York are progressive, ending the sad idea of a deeds,survey, notarized documents from 1904, have no legal standing over a fence or other claim of a unknowing/knowing person of irresponsibility or just intentional theft. Usually the person claiming adverse possession has an advantage of financial standing to create the controversy in the creation. When and how unfortunate is the law to encourage and support the idea of "legalized theft" . Most children are taught at a early age of the moral obligation to never be a thief. The law is a perversion of legal fighting completely negating the idea of documents, surveys, deeds, taxes paid for property you purchased and allowing a person to diminish all ideas of proper procedure, legal paperwork, court documents to hold any power. Adverse possession creates anquish, separation of neighbors, separation of communities, and serious unfortunate situations as I have read of other cases. This antiquated law really demands an explanation/change.