Lowe v. Rowe
173 Wash. App. 253
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lowe sued Rowe for defamation and conversion after Rowe had a trespass notice served; Rowe sought summary judgment under Washington's anti-SLAPP statute RCW 4.24.510, and the trial court dismissed the defamation claim and awarded statutory damages.
- Lowe inherited vehicles from his uncle, which were on the uncle’s property in Columbia County; Rowe later bought the land and allowed a limited time for Lowe to remove the vehicles.
- Rowe had some vehicles crushed; Lowe removed others with Rowe’s help, but Lowe failed to pay Rowe $80 for one truck; Rowe then sought a trespass warning from law enforcement.
- Lowe filed suit in 2009; by July 2010 Lowe could remove the remaining vehicles, which he did.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against Lowe on both conversion and defamation, invoking anti-SLAPP immunity and awarding $10,000 statutory damages and attorney’s fees; Lowe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 4.24.510 immunity applies to Rowe’s communication to law enforcement | Lowe argues immunity is inapplicable or requires bad faith; Rowe seeks protection | Rowe contends immunity applies and precludes defamation claim | Immunity applies; bad-faith question remains for damages and remand is required |
| Whether the bad-faith element affects statutory damages under RCW 4.24.510 | Bailey requires bad faith to deny damages, but statute was amended | Statutory damages can be denied if communicated in bad faith | Damages issue is unresolved; remand for fact-finding on bad faith |
| Whether the defamation claim was properly dismissed on immunity | Immunity forecloses liability only for the asserted communication | immunity defeats defamation claim | Defamation claim dismissed on immunity; affirmed |
| Whether the conversion claim was properly dismissed | Lowe did not abandon vehicles within the time to retrieve | Lowe abandoned property by failing to remove timely | Conversion claim affirmed; abandonment and timing upheld |
| Whether statutory damages and attorney fees awarded at summary judgment should stand | Damages awarded; issues unresolved | Damages supported by statute upon successful immunity | Damages reversed on remand; attorney fees for defense allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 147 Wn. App. 251 (2008) (removal of good faith requirement; intent does not control unambiguous statute)
- Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29 (2000) (summary judgment standards; material facts needed to defeat)
- Excelsior Mortg. Equity Fund II v. Schroeder, 171 Wn. App. 333 (2012) (abandonment/possession in conversion analysis)
- Lamar Outdoor Adv. v. Harwood, 162 Wn. App. 385 (2011) (timeliness of removal as defense to conversion)
- Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc., 153 Wn. App. 710 (2009) (abandonment and possession considerations in conversion)