Darin And Lisa Chestnut, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Andrew Ko, Appellant/cr-respondent
85939-1
Wash. Ct. App.May 19, 2025Background
- Andrew Ko and the Chestnuts are neighbors in the Strandvik community, both subject to a 1926 easement allowing Strandvik members to use a 10-foot strip through Ko’s property as a walkway or roadway.
- Ko installed a chain link fence and gate on the easement in 2016 to restrict access; the Chestnuts and the Homeowners Association objected, stating it interfered with the easement.
- In 2017, after Strandvik homeowners voted to remove the fence, Darin Chestnut physically removed it; Ko then sued the Chestnuts for trespass and Strandvik for violating association bylaws.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants on timeliness and merits grounds, denied sanctions, and quieted title to the easement in favor of Strandvik.
- Ko appealed dismissal; the Chestnuts and Strandvik cross-appealed the denial of sanctions.
- The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the Chestnuts on trespass (allowing the claim to go forward), affirmed for Strandvik (no bylaw violation), and affirmed the denial of sanctions and attorney fees for all parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of trespass claim | Suit was timely because statute was tolled | Claim was untimely under statute of limitations | Trespass claim was timely |
| Trespass by removing fence | Darin exceeded scope of easement; trespass | Darin acted lawfully under easement rights | Fact issue remains; summary judgment reversed |
| Strandvik bylaw violation | Meeting was an unlawful special meeting | Meeting was board meeting, not subject to special reqs | No evidence of bylaw violation; summary judgment for Strandvik |
| Denial of sanctions (CR 11/attorney fees) | Not applicable | Ko’s claims were baseless/vexatious | Claims were debatable, not baseless; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wn. App. 381 (scope and misuse of easements relevant to trespass)
- Sanders v. City of Seattle, 160 Wn.2d 198 (easement use is limited by express grant)
- Littlefair v. Schulze, 169 Wn. App. 659 (need for court determination before removing alleged easement obstructions)
- Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210 (standards for awarding CR 11 sanctions)