Christopher And Suzanne Guest, V David And Karen Lange
195 Wash. App. 330
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Guests (Christopher & Suzanne) and Langes are neighboring property owners; dispute concerned an easement and a deck that allegedly encroached on the Guests’ property.
- Guests sued for trespass and breach of contract and filed a notice of lis pendens against the Langes’ property; Langes counterclaimed to quiet title.
- Jury and trial court ruled for the Langes, dismissing the Guests’ claims with prejudice and awarding judgment to quiet title in the Langes’ favor; Guests appealed.
- Guests filed supersedeas bond(s) to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal (cashier’s checks totaling $4,000; $1,000 related to the Langes’ judgment).
- Langes moved to cancel the lis pendens under RCW 4.28.320, arguing the action was settled and that the bond amount was inadequate (they claimed damages from the stay exceeded $200,000). Trial court canceled the lis pendens, did not rule on discovery/strike motions, and Guests appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guests) | Defendant's Argument (Langes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a supersedeas bond prevents cancellation of a lis pendens under RCW 4.28.320 | Filing a proper supersedeas bond stays enforcement and preserves the status quo, so the action is not "settled, discontinued, or abated," preventing cancellation | The trial judgment rendered the action final (or was "self-executing"); Cashmere suggests a court may cancel lis pendens despite supersedeas if parties are protected by bond; bond amount here was inadequate | The Court held a properly filed supersedeas bond prevents cancellation: action is not "settled, discontinued, or abated" while judgment is stayed, so trial court abused discretion in cancelling lis pendens |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by cancelling the lis pendens absent ruling on Guests’ discovery/strike motions | Trial court should have resolved evidentiary/discovery disputes before cancelling lis pendens | Langes relied on their declarations and the court’s discretion to cancel | Court did not reach this claim because cancellation itself was unlawful; remanded for further proceedings including bond sufficiency determination |
| Whether Section D of the Easement permits Guests to recover attorney fees | Section D indemnifies grantor for claims arising from "utilization of said easement," so Guests seek fees under indemnity provision | Langes argued Section D does not apply to these claims or fee shifting | Court held Section D does not cover the litigation here and denied attorney fees |
| Appropriate remedy on appeal | Guests sought reversal of lis pendens cancellation and fees; requested remand for bond-amount proceedings | Langes sought affirmance of cancellation | Court reversed cancellation and remanded for proceedings to ensure any supersedeas bond adequately secures Langes’ damages during appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Beers v. Ross, 137 Wn. App. 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses lis pendens cancellation and prior decision not to require a stay request to prevent cancellation)
- Murphree v. Rawlings, 3 Wn. App. 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970) (describes supersedeas bond purpose to preserve status quo pending appeal)
- Teter v. Deck, 174 Wn.2d 207 (Wash. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Cook v. Tarbert Logging, Inc., 190 Wn. App. 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (errors of law as untenable reasons for abuse of discretion)
- Flight Options, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, 172 Wn.2d 487 (Wash. 2011) (statutory interpretation standard of review)
- Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass’n, 169 Wn.2d 516 (Wash. 2010) (giving effect to plain statutory meaning)
- Cashmere State Bank v. Richardson, 105 Wash. 105 (Wash. 1919) (historical discussion that a supersedeas may protect appellant though not dispositive on RCW 4.28.320 authority)