Everett Hangar, Llc, Resp. v. Kilo 6 Owners Assn, Et Ano., Apps.
73504-7
Wash. Ct. App.Aug 8, 2016Background
- Everett Hangar (buyer of Lot 12) and Historic Flight Foundation (occupant of Lot 11) occupy adjacent leased lots at Paine Field; Kilo Six LLC created CC&Rs and an Owners Association to govern three lots (Lots 11–13).
- CC&Rs grant each lot owner an ingress/egress easement "reasonably necessary" to move aircraft across portions of ramps on any lot; CC&Rs also address safety/security and authorize fee-shifting to a prevailing party enforcing the Declaration.
- Foundation conducts public events on Lot 11 ramp, sometimes blocking ramp and using Lot 13 for parking; Everett Hangar operates business jets from Lot 12 and uses the Lot 11 ramp via easement when necessary.
- Everett Hangar sued claiming easement obstruction, CC&Rs safety/security breaches, Association bylaw violations, and fiduciary breach by John Sessions; trial court dismissed damage claims but granted injunctive relief and attorney fees to Everett Hangar; claims against Sessions were dismissed without prejudice.
- Trial court enjoined Defendants from placing objects in object-free areas and a jet-blast safety zone, blocking east/west exits to the Kilo 7 taxi lane, allowing non-trained persons on ramps while aircraft move, restricting access to Lot 12 without Everett Hangar's express permission, prohibiting propping open gates, and ordering a perimeter fence on Lot 13; awarded ~$819k in attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of easement: temporal vs spatial limits | Easement grants right to "move" aircraft across portions of ramp at any time necessary | "Reasonably necessary" limits use spatially and temporally; events may lawfully limit access | "Reasonably necessary" is a spatial limitation only; owners have access when needed (affirmed) |
| Inclusion of jet-blast safety zone in easement | Moving aircraft implies under‑power operations, so easement requires surrounding safety zone | No language adds a jet-blast zone; trial court lacked evidence of original intent | Court erred to include jet‑blast zone in easement (reversed as to that portion) |
| Injunction terms affecting Foundation's ramp and Lot 12 access | Needed to prevent interference with easement and address safety/security violations | Terms are overbroad, may prevent Foundation's own aircraft servicing and exceed CC&Rs/leases | Injunction justified to prevent material interference, but some provisions were overly broad (e.g., requiring advance express permission for Lot 12 access) |
| Safety/security remedies and Association liability | Everett Hangar can enforce CC&Rs and related airport/security rules; Association failed to enforce | CC&Rs language is permissive; Association not obligated to provide/maintain security; no basis to impose liability on Kilo Six/Historic Hangars via Association provisions | Everett Hangar may enforce safety/security obligations tied to leases and airport rules against lot owners; but court erred imputing Association duties and imposing liability on Kilo Six/Historic Hangars as alleged in Count III; fence order and express-permission requirement were arbitrary |
| Dismissal of claims vs Sessions | Everett Hangar had claims against Sessions to adjudicate | Sessions: dismissal should be with prejudice after merits adjudication | Trial court adjudicated the merits but dismissed without prejudice—error; dismissal should be with prejudice |
| Attorney fees under CC&Rs | Everett Hangar prevailed on CC&R claims and is entitled to fees | Defendants argued proportionality or offset because multiple claims and mixed results | Fee award to Everett Hangar permissible for CC&R claims, but trial court failed to issue adequate findings to support amount; remand for findings and recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wn.2d 200 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (standard for appellate review of discretionary relief)
- Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (treatment of mixed questions of fact and law in easement interpretation)
- City of Seattle v. Nazarenus, 60 Wn.2d 657 (Sup. Ct. 1962) (plain‑language approach to instrument interpretation)
- Veach v. Culp, 92 Wn.2d 570 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (servient‑estate use must not materially interfere with easement holder)
- Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (trial court's discretion in fashioning injunctions)
- Lombardo v. Pierson, 121 Wn.2d 577 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (ejusdem generis and interpreting general vs specific terms)
- Colwell v. Etzell, 119 Wn. App. 432 (Ct. App. 2004) (use of extrinsic evidence when easement language is ambiguous)