David K. Bowers, V James W. Dunn, 48367-0

Background

Dunn and neighbors (Bowers, Cobbs, Beltrames) share a private road/easement created by short plats; the road provides sole access to several lots and historically maintenance costs were shared.
Dispute began after Dunn installed speed bumps and took other actions allegedly interfering with neighbors’ use; Bowers sued in Jan 2013 seeking declaratory relief, damages, and an injunction preventing interference with the easement (they did not seek a no-contact injunction in the complaint).
Bench trial (Jan 2014) resulted in findings that Bowers (and others) hold an express easement, Dunn may install one speed bump on his portion, and the court retained jurisdiction; that judgment was not appealed.
After trial, further incidents and motions led the trial court (Oct 2015) to enter an order prohibiting Dunn from any verbal or nonverbal contact with the Bowers, and (Dec 2015) to enter a detailed road maintenance order allocating duties and costs among listed parcels.
On appeal, the court reviewed (1) whether the trial court had statutory or equitable authority to issue the post-judgment no-contact injunction and (2) whether the trial court had authority to craft and apply the road maintenance order, including to nonparties.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had authority under RCW 7.40 to enter a post-judgment injunction prohibiting Dunn from contacting the Bowers	Bowers: trial court may issue injunction to prevent harassment and protect rights	Dunn: no statutory basis—injunctions under Ch. 7.40 must be sought pre-judgment or fit statutory grounds	Court: No—chapter 7.40 did not authorize this post-judgment no-contact injunction
Whether the trial court could use equitable powers to issue the no-contact injunction	Bowers: even if not under Ch. 7.40, equity permits injunction to prevent harassment	Dunn: equitable relief unavailable because statutory antiharassment remedy (Ch. 10.14) is adequate	Court: Equity exists but injunction improper because Ch. 10.14 provides a plain, complete, speedy, adequate remedy; injunction reversed
Whether the trial court had authority to impose a road maintenance order allocating costs and setting road-use rules among the parties	Bowers: court may fashion equitable remedies to allocate maintenance and ensure unobstructed easement use	Dunn: order imposed obligations and specific rules beyond the express easement and bound nonparties	Court: Mostly upheld—court has equitable power to allocate maintenance and impose unobstruction rules, but exceeded authority by imposing some non-easement rules and by applying order to nonparties; remand to revise order
Whether specific findings and application to nonparties were supported and permissible	Bowers: findings and parties listed were proper; some nonparties agreed to be bound	Dunn: some findings lack support and court cannot bind nonparties	Court: Agreed some findings (use by parcel 0520177110; lot subdivision count) lacked substantial evidence and the court lacked authority to bind nonparties (Lewises, Joneses); directed revisions on remand

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353 (discusses de novo review of statutory authority)
Weidert v. Hanson, 172 Wn. App. 106 (standard for appellate review of equitable discretion)
Kucera v. Dep’t of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200 (criteria for injunctive relief and adequacy of legal remedy)
Bushy v. Weldon, 30 Wn.2d 266 (equity can require shared driveway maintenance and impose unobstruction rules)
Buck Mountain Owners’ Ass’n v. Prestwich, 174 Wn. App. 702 (equity supports allocation of shared road maintenance costs but not forcing parties to execute a contract)
City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 128 Wn.2d 492 (trial court generally cannot bind nonparties)
Hough v. Stockbridge, 150 Wn.2d 234 (context on chapter 10.14 and equitable relief within that statutory process)
SAC Downtown Ltd. P’ship v. Kahn, 123 Wn.2d 197 (broad equitable powers of trial courts)