340 P.3d 191
Wash.2014Background
- Heinmiller applied for and received (Nov. 1, 2011) a San Juan County building permit to add a second story to a garage; neighboring owners (Durland et al.) later learned of the permit after the 21‑day administrative appeal window had closed.
- Durland filed two challenges: (Durland I) a LUPA petition in superior court without first appealing to the county hearing examiner; (Durland II) an untimely administrative appeal to the hearing examiner and a § 1983 due‑process claim in superior court after the examiner dismissed the appeal as untimely.
- The superior court dismissed the LUPA petition (no final land use decision; failure to exhaust administrative remedies) and granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed and awarded fees to Heinmiller; the Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the appeals.
- Central legal questions: whether (1) permit issuance constituted a LUPA "land use decision" absent exhaustion of local administrative appeals, (2) equitable exceptions (notice/futility) excuse exhaustion, (3) Durland possessed a constitutionally protected property interest in his private view to support a due‑process claim, and (4) whether RCW 4.84.370 permits attorney fees when a private party prevails on jurisdictional/procedural grounds.
- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the LUPA petition (no final land use decision; exhaustion required; no equitable exceptions), affirmed summary judgment on the § 1983 claim (no protected property interest), and awarded attorney fees to Heinmiller under RCW 4.84.370(1), including fees for the Supreme Court appeal as to the LUPA issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issuance of the building permit was a LUPA "land use decision" permitting direct superior court review | Durland: permit issuance is final; he could file LUPA petition despite not exhausting county appeals | County/Heinmiller: permit was appealable to hearing examiner; no final land use decision until administrative appeals concluded | Held: Not a LUPA land use decision; exhaustion required and superior court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether equitable exceptions (lack of notice or futility) excuse LUPA exhaustion requirement | Durland: lack of actual/constructive notice made exhaustion impossible; doctrines like futility or equitable tolling should apply | County/Heinmiller: LUPA’s "to the extent required by law" points to statutory, not equitable, exceptions; strict exhaustion furthers finality/predictability | Held: No equitable exceptions; exhaustion required and cannot be judicially excused under LUPA |
| Whether Durland has a constitutionally protected property interest (private view) to support a § 1983 due‑process claim | Durland: SJCC height/size limits protect views and create entitlement to maintain views, so denial of notice/deprivation implicates property interest | County/Heinmiller: SJCC lacks mandatory language protecting private views; code limits protect public visual access and leave county discretion | Held: No protected property interest in private views under SJCC; § 1983 due‑process claim fails |
| Whether private prevailing parties can recover attorney fees under RCW 4.84.370 when victory is procedural/jurisdictional rather than on merits | Durland: statute requires prevailing on the merits (per some Court of Appeals divisions) | Heinmiller: "prevail" and "substantially prevail" include procedural victories; statute allows fees to private parties who prevailed in prior administrative/judicial stages | Held: RCW 4.84.370(1) allows fees to private parties who prevail (including on jurisdictional/procedural grounds); public entities under (2) recover only when decision is upheld on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904 (Wash. 2002) (emphasizing LUPA goals of finality, predictability, and expedited review)
- Samuel’s Furniture, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440 (Wash. 2002) (finality for appellate purposes cannot be defined by a party’s election to appeal)
- Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397 (Wash. 2005) (strict compliance with LUPA timing bars even some illegal decisions)
- Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300 (Wash. 2009) (superior court review under LUPA limited to land use decisions)
- Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325 (Wash. 2011) (LUPA standing/exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional)
- Durland v. San Juan County, 175 Wn. App. 316 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (Court of Appeals decisions affirmed on exhaustion, timeliness, and § 1983 issues)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests protected by Due Process arise from legitimate claims of entitlement)
- Wedges/Ledges of Cal., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56 (9th Cir. 1994) (property interest analysis: articulable, mandatory standards constrain discretion)