Karlberg v. Otten, 280 P.3d 1123

Old fence long recognized as boundary between two rural parcels near Bellingham; Karlberg bought west parcel in 1975 and built a shop split by the fence; a 1994 survey placed the true boundary 82 feet west of the fence, cutting through Karlberg’s shop; Otten acquired the eastern parcel in 1996 and challenged Karlberg’s use of land east of the survey line; Karlberg sued in 2008 to quiet title to a 45-foot strip east of the survey line (the Disputed Area) asserting adverse possession, recognition, or acquiescence; trial court found title extended to the fence but limited relief to 45 feet; Karlberg obtained a 2009 judgment quieting title to the 45-foot strip; Karlberg then filed a second action in December 2009 seeking title to the remaining land up to the fence; the trial court later granted summary judgment in Karlberg’s favor on the boundary question, but on appeal the court reverse the second judgment and affirm the first, holding res judicata barred the second action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the second quiet title action	Otten argues the second suit involves a different subject matter/land.	Karlberg contends the second suit concerns the remaining land and is allowed.	Barred; boundary fixed by first judgment remains 45 feet east of the survey line.
Whether the denial of Otten’s motion to amend the first suit to add an adverse possession counterclaim was an abuse of discretion	Otten contends amendment should be allowed to litigate adverse possession.	Karlberg argues amendment would prejudice and is untimely.	Not an abuse of discretion; amendment denied.
Whether the first judgment precludes later attempts to move the boundary to the fence	Karlberg asserts the first findings support extending to the fence, but relief limited to 45 feet.	Otten argues a later suit could determine the remaining boundary.	Precludes; two actions were identical in subject matter and final boundary remains at 45 feet east of the survey line.

Kinsey v. Duteau, 126 Wash. 330 (1923) (no split of causes of action; same facts support broader relief in a subsequent action barred)
Kemmer v. Keiski, 116 Wn. App. 924 (2003) (second judgment expanding relief precluded by first judgment)
Wash. Nickel Mining & Alloys, Inc. v. Martin, 13 Wn. App. 180 (1975) (preclusion as to location/description of boundary when first judgment determines a line or corner)
Baroutsis v. Gregory, 154 Pa. Super. 136 (1944) (first judgment determining the division line precludes subsequent suits for different portions)
St. Luke’s Evangelical Lutheran Church of Country Homes v. Hales, 13 Wn. App. 483 (1975) (illustrates non-applicability of res judicata when subject matter is different (parcels are distinct))