Just wanted to express my appreciation in talking with you yesterday about adverse possession. Clearly, we have differences of opinion about the law.
As you know, it was 1881 since the last time Washington's adverse possession law was changed. If you believe that we should keep laws stagnant and unchanged as to what they were in 1881, then I guess then that you subscribe to the view that women should not have the right to vote. For after all, in 1881 it was Constitutionally settled law that women did not have the right to vote.
In fact, it took 133 years for that change to occur. For 200+ years, people could legally justify owning slaves. I'm sure you do not believe that the Dred Scott decision was right. Legal, yes... but was it right? Other laws, that I'm sure you touched upon in law school, like dowry and curtsy no longer exist because society has moved beyond their need. Heck, can you imagine what our jails would be like if we still enforced "debtor's prison" today?
If there is anything that I can convince you of, it is this: the original need for adverse possession has faded. It is a law whose time has come and gone. As a country, we do not face starvation, and we no longer live in the wild west. Times have changed, needs have changed, society has changed. It is time for the law to change, too.
Because of this, both New York and Colorado have recently made substantive changes to their adverse possession laws. I suggest you read up on what they have changed and why. Obviously, this was not a trivial matter for these jurisdictions and their legislators. But, they did it because the people voiced their concern that current adverse possession statutes were outdated and in need of improvement. It is time for Washington to move beyond 1881 and catch up to today's standards.
If you have any other questions about adverse possession or why other people in Washington support House Bill 1026, please let me know.
Sincerely, Chris
What I've learned in talking with attorneys about the law (and yes... I've talked to A LOT of attorneys) is that there are basically two types of lawyers out there. Those who are great at knowing the law and reciting cases, and others who are great at thinking logically and are emotionally unbiased. I prefer the latter. We need logic and reason if society is to move forward. Appeals to history, appeals to authority, false dilemmas simply should not be used as legal justification. The law needs to be thought of as being alive. It changes and needs to change as society grows. I just wish there were more attorneys who applied logic and reason to their work, rather than who can just recite cases.
Posts
