Nephew lives rent-free for 14 years, claims aunt's house; court backs uncle

Representative Image (AI-generated)

Living in a family-owned home for years without paying rent does not necessarily give someone the right to claim ownership of the property. A Washington man who spent 14 years living in a house belonging to his aunt and uncle discovered this after his aunt died and her husband sought to remove him from the property.

Although the nephew had maintained the house, carried out improvements and occasionally paid utility bills, he argued that his long occupation had given him ownership rights.In an unpublished opinion dated November 9, 2026, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, upheld a lower court's decision in favour of the uncle, Jack Lyons. The ruling in Jack Lyons v. Curtis Reep, available on Justia, rejected Curtis Reep's claim of adverse possession and affirmed the order granting Lyons ownership of the property and a writ of ejectment.

The court concluded that Reep had not provided sufficient evidence that the original permission to live there had been withdrawn by both owners, a crucial requirement for his ownership claim.

Nephew lived in the property for 14 years without paying rent

The dispute concerned a single-family house on a residential lot in Tukwila, Washington. Jack Lyons and his wife, Leota Lyons, purchased the property in November 2001. It became part of their marital community property, meaning both spouses held an interest in it.

In 2011, Leota's nephew, Curtis Reep, moved into the house. He continued living there until 2025, a period of approximately 14 years. During this time, he did not sign a rental agreement or pay rent to either of the owners.Reep also took responsibility for several maintenance and improvement activities. Between 2012 and 2015, he arranged or carried out painting, landscaping, yard work, tree maintenance, cleaning and house repairs.

He also graded part of the property and installed a paved parking path. At different times, he made payments towards the property's water and electricity bills. However, the arrangement eventually became a source of disagreement.

Between 2013 and 2015, Jack expressed his desire for Reep to leave and objected to the nephew's grading and paving work.In January 2025, Leota died. Five months later, her estate's personal representative transferred her interest in the property to Jack, in accordance with her will.

Jack subsequently asked Reep to vacate the house, but he refused.

Uncle approached the court to recover the house

In August 2025, Jack filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court, seeking to establish his ownership of the property and obtain an order allowing Reep's removal. Reep represented himself in the proceedings and filed a counterclaim based on adverse possession. He argued that although he had initially been allowed to live in the house, his occupation eventually became hostile to the owners' interests.Under Washington law, adverse possession allows someone to acquire ownership of land under specific circumstances, even without holding its legal title. However, the claimant must establish that possession was open and notorious, actual and uninterrupted, exclusive and hostile to the legal owner's interests. These conditions must exist together for at least 10 years under Washington's 10-year statute of limitations for recovering real property, RCW 4.16.020.The lower court granted Jack's request for summary judgment, concluding that Reep had not established the necessary conditions for adverse possession. It also ordered that title be confirmed in Jack's favour and authorised a writ of ejectment, allowing the nephew to be removed from the property. Reep appealed the decision.

Appeals court found no evidence that both owners withdrew permission

The appeals court focused on whether Reep's initially permitted occupation had subsequently become hostile to the owners' interests.

It explained that permission to occupy a property generally prevents that occupation from qualifying as hostile possession. This is particularly important when someone initially enters a property with the owner's consent.The judges also considered that the house was marital community property. Under Washington law, one spouse cannot give away community property without the express or implied consent of the other spouse.

The court applied the same reasoning to permission to occupy the property and its subsequent withdrawal. The evidence showed that both Jack and Leota had allowed Reep to live there in 2011. Jack's declaration stated that he had permitted his nephew to move into the house, while Reep himself said Leota had told him she was gifting the property to him.Although Jack had expressed objections and asked Reep to find somewhere else to live, the appeals court found no admissible evidence establishing that Leota had also withdrawn her permission.

It therefore concluded that Reep had not demonstrated that the marital community's permission had been effectively revoked.

Property improvements did not make the occupation hostile

Reep also argued that his improvements, particularly the construction of a paved parking area, demonstrated that he was treating the property as his own. However, the appeals court disagreed. It found that the work was consistent with the permission he had received to occupy a residential property.

Maintaining the house, landscaping the grounds and installing a parking area did not, by themselves, establish hostile possession.

The court ultimately found no genuine dispute over a material fact that would require a trial. It affirmed the lower court's summary judgment, the decision confirming Jack's title and the writ of ejectment.Overall, the ruling clarifies that living in a relative's property for many years, maintaining it and making improvements do not automatically establish ownership through adverse possession. When occupation begins with permission, a claimant must also provide sufficient evidence that the permission was effectively withdrawn and that all the legal requirements for adverse possession were subsequently met.

In this case, Reep failed to establish that requirement, allowing his uncle to retain ownership and pursue his removal from the house.