Alan F. Gervais v. Brad L. Miederhoff And Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 47852-8

Background

In 1992 Gervais short-platted a tract into Lots 1–4; the short plat expressly created access easements for Lots 1–2 but not for Lots 3–4; the plat showed a shared corner between Lots 3 and 4 and a driveway crossing Lot 3 to Lot 4.
Gervais retained Lots 3–4, deeded Lot 3 to his daughter (1996), who later sold Lot 3 to Rosenlund (2004); Gervais and Rosenlund executed a written driveway easement in 2004, but it was not recorded until 2010—after Rosenlund sold Lot 3 to Miederhoff (2009).
The driveway across Lot 3 was infrequently used by Gervais (occasional maintenance trips); portions were overgrown and appeared abandoned; at purchase Miederhoff saw the short plat and received a seller disclosure indicating a private road or easement for access to the property.
Gervais sued to declare an easement for ingress/egress over Lot 3 to benefit Lot 4, alleging express notice, inquiry notice, and an easement implied by prior use; the trial court found no record or inquiry notice of the unrecorded easement, no implied easement by prior use, no prescriptive easement, and no necessity-based easement (but recognized a utility easement).
Gervais moved for reconsideration, offering post-trial engineering evidence estimating a >$1M cost to build an alternative access; the trial court denied reconsideration because the report could have been obtained earlier and the court’s legal conclusions were correct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gervais)	Defendant's Argument (Miederhoff)	Held
Were findings of fact insufficient?	Trial court failed to find facts about road location/visibility, title commitment receipt, and seller disclosure details.	Existing written and oral findings were sufficient on the material issues.	Findings were adequate to support conclusions; no reversible error.
Did Miederhoff have inquiry notice of an unrecorded express easement?	The visible roadway, the short plat, and the seller disclosure should have prompted inquiry.	Road was overgrown and infrequently used; short plat did not show an easement for Lot 4; disclosure was ambiguous and did not indicate an easement benefiting Lot 4.	No inquiry notice; Miederhoff was a bona fide purchaser and took free of the unrecorded easement.
Was there an easement implied by prior use (unity, apparent/continuous use, reasonable necessity)?	Unity existed; prior use and necessity supported an implied easement.	Use was merely occasional and not continuous/apparent; an alternative access could be created at reasonable cost.	No implied easement: use was not sufficiently apparent/continuous and alternative access was feasible (no reasonable necessity).
Was denial of motion for reconsideration erroneous (new evidence re: >$1M cost)?	New post-trial engineering estimate shows alternative access cost so high it establishes necessity; court misapplied legal standards.	The estimate was new evidence that could have been obtained earlier; legal conclusions were correct.	Motion was timely but properly denied: new evidence not justified for reconsideration and legal conclusions were correct.

Key Cases Cited

Ellingsen v. Franklin County, 117 Wn.2d 24 (bona fide purchaser rule for unrecorded conveyances and effect of recording)
Glaser v. Holdorf, 56 Wn.2d 204 (definition of inquiry notice and duty to inquire)
Daly v. Rizzutto, 59 Wash. 62 (explanation that a purchaser must have facts that would prompt inquiry; the "clue" standard)
McPhaden v. Scott, 95 Wn. App. 431 (criteria for easement implied by prior use; alternative access dispositive when not costly)
Woodward v. Lopez, 174 Wn. App. 460 (circumstances where alternative access costs and regulatory barriers supported necessity for an implied easement)