Kevin Schoenfelder v. Robert Larson And Jennifer Larson
48885-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- Neighbors (Schoenfelder, Bergman, Watermeyer, Lepape) use a private ~10-foot-wide asphalt road from Kopachuck Drive that runs across parcels now owned by the Larsons; the road has been used since at least the 1960s.
- A 1996 recorded express easement grants a non-exclusive surface easement for ingress and egress of five feet on each side of the center line (a 10-foot paved corridor) across the road.
- The paved road is too narrow for two vehicles to pass, so users routinely relied on four turnout areas (including the larger "meadow" and the "triangle") located on the Larsons’ parcels to allow passing, including by large and emergency vehicles.
- Rocks were placed in the meadow and triangle in the 1990s to block use; neighbors removed or dislodged them and continued use. Trial court found the Kings (prior owners) placed the rocks and knew of the turnout use.
- After purchasing the property, the Larsons surveyed and staked the road and planned construction that would affect the meadow; neighbors obtained a TRO and preliminary injunction. After trial, the court: (1) found neighbors established a prescriptive easement in the meadow and triangle; and (2) held the express easement ambiguous and enjoined the Larsons from building fences/structures within 2.5 feet of the paved road edges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether neighbors established a prescriptive easement in the meadow and triangle | Use was open, notorious, continuous, uniform, adverse, and known to owner; removal of rocks and continued use showed adversity | Larsons: findings lack substantial evidence; historical use was permissive neighborly acquiescence, not adverse | Court: substantial evidence supports findings; use was adverse and overcame presumption of permissive use; prescriptive easement exists |
| Sufficiency of factual findings / standard of review | N/A (challenges framed against findings) | Larsons: trial court findings unsupported by substantial evidence | Court: defers to trial court on credibility; substantial evidence supports challenged findings |
| Whether the express easement allows fences/structures near the road; whether ambiguity exists | Neighbors: easement intended to confirm historical use and accommodate large/emergency vehicles; extrinsic evidence supports needing 2.5 ft clear each side | Larsons: easement unambiguous; court improperly expanded easement and relied on need rather than intent | Court: easement silent/ambiguous on fence; extrinsic evidence considered; restriction (no fence/structure within 2.5 ft) necessary to avoid material interference; not an expansion of the 10-ft easement |
| Whether injunction/restriction exceeded scope by expanding easement | N/A | Larsons: prohibition effectively expands easement width | Court: restriction does not enlarge the recorded 10-foot surface easement; it prevents unreasonable interference consistent with original intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873 (Wash. 2003) (standard for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact and for interpreting easements)
- Gamboa v. Clark, 183 Wn.2d 38 (Wash. 2015) (elements of prescriptive easement; adverse use and presumption of permissive use)
- Nw. Cities Gas Co. v. W. Fuel Co., 13 Wn.2d 75 (Wash. 1942) (longstanding articulation of elements and standards for prescriptive easements)
- Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., 115 Wn.2d 364 (Wash. 1990) (burden on appellant to show findings lack substantial evidence)
- Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wn.2d 627 (Wash. 2010) (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)
- Panorama Vill. Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc., 102 Wn. App. 422 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (standards for reviewing conclusions of law and findings)
- Nw. Props. Brokers Network, Inc. v. Early Dawn Estates Homeowners Ass’n, 173 Wn. App. 778 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (easement interpretation when agreement is ambiguous or silent; consider original parties’ intent and surrounding circumstances)
- Lee v. Lozier, 88 Wn. App. 176 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (review of trial court’s conclusion that factual findings constitute a prescriptive easement)