Garcia v. Henley, 415 P.3d 241

Neighbors Garcia and Henley disputed a boundary after the Henleys repeatedly rebuilt a fence that encroached on the Garcias' land; an initial encroachment occurred in 1997 and a further small encroachment occurred in 2011.
Garcias sued in 2012 seeking ejectment and damages; Henleys counterclaimed to quiet title and, at trial, invoked equitable defenses including de minimis encroachment.
Trial court found adverse possession to the 1997 fence area but concluded the 2011 sliver (33.5 sq ft) was not adversely possessed; nevertheless the court ordered the Garcias to convey the 2011 sliver to the Henleys for $500 instead of ordering ejectment.
The trial court did not make specific findings on each of the five equitable Arnold factors (as reaffirmed in Proctor) before denying injunctive ejectment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Garcias appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which granted review to decide whether the trial court erred by failing to reason through the Arnold elements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia)	Defendant's Argument (Henley)	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying ejectment without analyzing Arnold factors	Trial court must make findings on each Arnold element; absence of findings precludes review and equates to failure to meet burden	Equitable considerations (de minimis/incidental encroachment) justified denying ejectment	Yes. Trial court erred; Henleys bore burden to prove each Arnold element by clear and convincing evidence and failed to do so
Who bears burden to justify denying ejectment and substituting conveyance/damages	Burden on encroacher to prove all Arnold elements by clear and convincing evidence	Henleys argued equities could justify relief despite small record showing	Burden remains on encroacher; failure to carry it requires injunctive relief for landowner
Effect of omission of explicit findings on Arnold elements	Omission prevents appellate review and is effectively a failure to prove elements	Trial court's general statement sufficed to apply equitable principles	Omission is error; absent clear findings, appellate court cannot determine whether elements met
Appropriate remedy on appeal (remand for findings vs reversal)	Reverse because encroacher failed to carry burden; order ejectment	Would support remand for findings	Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with requiring ejectment (no need to speculate findings)

Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wash.2d 143 (1968) (sets five-factor test for when equity may deny ejectment and require conveyance/damages)
Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wash.2d 491 (2010) (reaffirms Arnold test and requires courts to reason through those equitable factors)
Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co., 91 Wash.2d 704 (1979) (findings of fact required on material issues for appellate review)
Pacesetter Real Estate, Inc. v. Fasules, 53 Wash. App. 463 (1989) (absence of findings of fact on critical issues can be treated as equivalent to a finding against the party bearing the burden)