Gamble Land & Timber, Ltd. v. Okanogan County
37297-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- In 2017 Gamble Land & Timber, Ltd. and Cascade Holdings Group, LP (the Partnerships) sued to quiet title to a 3.64‑mile gated segment of French Creek Road that crosses their property and adjoining state (DNR) land; the segment had gates at both ends and had been treated as private by the Partnerships.
- Okanogan County’s 1955 official road map showed the road as a county road; the Partnerships’ predecessors had three prior petitions to the County to vacate portions of the road (denied each time), culminating in a 2009 County resolution that disclaimed interest in the gated portion after litigation threats.
- During discovery the County uncovered 1889 territorial records (petition, viewers’ report, surveyor’s field notes, BOCC minutes) indicating the Methow Valley Road was viewed, surveyed, and declared open in 1889; later federal and GLO/USGS maps (1901–1905) also depicted the route.
- The Okanogan Open Roads Coalition intervened, asserted the road became public by petition and by prescriptive/public use, moved for summary judgment, and alternatively sought dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Partnerships’ prior petitions to the BOCC.
- The trial court denied the Coalition’s dismissal motion but granted summary judgment to the Coalition that the gated segment became a county road by petition and public use; both sides appealed (Partnerships appealed summary judgment; Coalition cross‑appealed jurisdictional denial).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: Hart historian’s report admissible; the 1889 petition/survey/field notes and subsequent maps support establishment/acceptance under R.S. 2477 and Washington law; nonuser/abandonment defenses failed; subject matter jurisdiction existed.
Issues
| Issue | Partnerships' Argument | Coalition/County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether superior court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs submitted vacatur issues to BOCC and are bound by BOCC rulings | Petitioning BOCC meant exclusive BOCC jurisdiction; prior BOCC denials bind plaintiffs and bar relitigation in superior court | Superior courts have constitutional jurisdiction over title/possession of real property; statutory petitioning does not divest superior court of jurisdiction | Denial of dismissal affirmed — superior court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear quiet title action |
| Whether Methow Valley Road was properly established/opened (1889 petition/survey/plat; R.S. 2477/1903 acceptance) | County/Coalition failed to show required recording of survey/plat; absence of recorded plat/survey defeats establishment | 1889 field notes (survey) and viewers’ report and subsequent BOCC minutes and maps show the road was surveyed, opened, and later accepted under R.S. 2477; field notes constitute the record survey; failure to record plat was subject to timely challenge and now time‑barred | Summary judgment affirmed — 1889 petition, field notes, BOCC action, and later acceptance establish the road as public (and R.S. 2477 grant attached) |
| Whether the road was abandoned or vacated by nonuse (statute of nonuser) | Road was gated, not maintained, and County resolution suggested no interest — thus abandoned/nonuser applies | Repeated petitions to vacate were denied; public use, occasional maintenance, and governmental trust in roads preclude abandonment; evidence shows the road was opened and used within the statutory period | Partnerships’ abandonment and nonuser claims rejected; road not abandoned and evidence supports timely opening (nonuser defense fails) |
| Admissibility of historian Hart’s report under ER 702/703 | Hart is not qualified or his report is speculative/hearsay and should be excluded | Hart is an experienced historian whose reliance on archival records and secondary sources is proper under ER 702/703; the report aids the trier of fact | Hart’s report admissible under ER 702/703; reliance on archival/hearsay material is permissible for an expert historian |
Key Cases Cited
- Grundy v. Thurston County, 155 Wn.2d 1 (2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Outsource Servs. Mgmt., LLC v. Nooksack Bus. Corp., 181 Wn.2d 272 (2014) (standard for subject‑matter jurisdiction review)
- Yorkston v. Whatcom County, 11 Wn. App. 2d 815 (2020) (county road establishment challenges must be timely appealed; statute of limitations defense to late collateral attack)
- Stofferan v. Okanogan County, 76 Wash. 265 (1913) (R.S. 2477 acceptance and prescription recognized for establishment of county roads)
- Smith v. Mitchell, 21 Wash. 536 (1899) (public roads across government land may be established by public use/prescription under R.S. 2477)
- Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 v. Permanente Cement Co., 61 Wn.2d 509 (1963) (public trust: municipal property devoted to public use not alienable without legislative authority)
- Bugli v. Ravalli County, 392 Mont. 131 (2018) (Montana Supreme Court decision on preclusion by county abandonment proceedings — discussed and distinguished on Washington law grounds)
- Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (R.S. 2477 did not itself create roads; state/territory must accept grant for roads to take effect)