Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. Airport Investment Co., 186 Wash. 2d 336

Background

Sound Transit condemned portions of Airport Investment Company’s (AIC) property to obtain a permanent guideway easement (PGE) and a temporary construction easement (TCE) for light rail construction; parties disputed just compensation.
Sound Transit made a written 30-day settlement offer of $463,500 for both easements 30 days before trial; offer stated it could be reevaluated if trial date continued but remained on the table.
Shortly before trial Sound Transit reduced the TCE footprint (~25% less area) and, on the first day of trial, provided revised TCE language limiting exclusive use to a maximum of 160 nonconsecutive days (still a three-year easement term); Sound Transit withdrew its 30-day offer the first day of trial.
At trial AIC’s president, Sandra Oh, testified she believed AIC was entitled to $485,000 based on an earlier appraisal; the trial court admitted that testimony as a party admission under ER 801(d)(2).
Jury awarded AIC $225,000 for the two easements; AIC sought attorneys’ fees under RCW 8.25.070(1)(a) and abandonment fees under RCW 8.25.075(1)(b), and moved for a new trial; trial court denied fees and new trial; Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (AIC)	Defendant's Argument (Sound Transit)	Held
Whether AIC is entitled to attorney fees under RCW 8.25.070(1)(a) because the 30‑day offer did not match the interest actually taken at trial	The 30‑day offer covered a different TCE than the one actually condemned; because the pretrial offer did not match the interest at trial, AIC had no meaningful offer to accept and thus fees are owed	A timely written 30‑day settlement offer was made; the statute requires “any written offer,” and subsequent narrowing of the TCE did not nullify that offer	Denied—RCW 8.25.070(1)(a) requires a condemnor to make any written offer 30 days before trial; Sound Transit made such an offer, so no fees under (1)(a)
Whether fees are available under RCW 8.25.070(1)(b) (judgment exceeds highest 30‑day offer by 10% or more)	Pretrial offer is inapplicable because it did not match the taking; comparison is meaningless when the taking changed	The statutory comparison protects against abusive offers; here AIC did not rely on (1)(b) and record does not show gamesmanship	Denied—(1)(b) inapplicable on facts; no abuse shown
Whether the change to the TCE constituted abandonment under RCW 8.25.075(1)(b)	The modification of the TCE (area and duration) was a de facto abandonment of the originally asserted taking and thus triggers abandonment fees	Proceedings went to judgment and property was taken; abandonment requires that condemnor never acquire property	Denied—proceeding not abandoned because property was taken and case litigated to judgment
Whether trial court erred by admitting Oh’s testimony about AIC’s earlier $485,000 valuation (nontestifying appraiser)	Oh’s testimony merely conveyed an out‑of‑court expert opinion through a lay witness (conduit for hearsay), violating SentinelC3 precedent	Oh, as company president, adopted the appraisal number as AIC’s belief; admission was a party admission under ER 801(d)(2) and not hearsay	Denied—a party‑opponent admission; Oh manifested adoption of the valuation and testimony was admissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. Roth, 78 Wn.2d 711 (discussing historical purpose of statutory fee protections in condemnation)
In re Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 67 Wn.2d 923 (condemnor must present adequate taking description to allow owner to prepare)
State v. Costich, 152 Wn.2d 463 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Port of Grays Harbor v. Citifor, Inc., 123 Wn.2d 610 (abandonment requires condemnor never acquired property)
SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 181 Wn.2d 127 (limits on introducing an out‑of‑court expert opinion through a party’s testimony)
State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11 (de novo review of evidentiary rule interpretation; abuse of discretion standard for admissibility)