379 P.3d 96
Wash.2016Background
- Pendergrast and Matichuk bought adjacent lots from the same seller; a preexisting six‑foot wooden fence stood several feet inside Matichuk’s deed line, enclosing a cherry tree on Pendergrast’s parcel.
- Both buyers and the seller behaved as if the fence marked the boundary; Pendergrast used and maintained her property up to the fence for years and invested about $130,000 improving the house for a B&B.
- Matichuk later obtained a survey showing the deed line lay several feet beyond the fence, notified Pendergrast he would move the fence, then tore down the fence and had the cherry tree cut down over her objections.
- Pendergrast sued to quiet title to the strip between the old fence and deed line and for trespass and timber trespass (seeking treble damages under RCW 64.12.030); the trial court granted partial summary judgment quieting title, a jury awarded economic and noneconomic damages, and the trial court trebled economic timber damages.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in large part but held the timber trespass statute required trebling noneconomic damages; the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common‑grantor doctrine (fence as on‑the‑ground boundary) quiets title to the strip between fence and deed line | Pendergrast: common grantor established visible boundary; successors bought and relied on fence; title should be quieted to the fence line | Matichuk: no evidence of an agreement or active change by grantor; deed controls; summary judgment was erroneous | Court: Affirmed — common‑grantor doctrine applies; visible fence and parties’ conduct bound successors; summary judgment quieting title proper |
| Whether emotional‑distress/noneconomic damages awarded for timber trespass are subject to statutory trebling under RCW 64.12.030 | Pendergrast: statute says "treble the amount of damages claimed or assessed" — plain language covers all damages including noneconomic | Matichuk: timber trespass is penal and must be strictly construed; trebling noneconomic (punitive) damages is not authorized | Court: Affirmed Court of Appeals — plain statutory language requires trebling of all damages awarded under timber trespass, including emotional distress |
| Whether the noneconomic damages were excessive and require a new trial or reduction | Pendergrast: testimony of severe financial and emotional harm, investment loss, prevented completion of B&B supports award | Matichuk: other life events caused distress; lack of corroboration means award is excessive | Court: Affirmed trial court and COA — jury verdict within range of evidence; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
| Whether defendant is entitled to attorney fees under lis pendens statute | N/A | Matichuk: sought fees as prevailing party under lis pendens statute | Court: Denied — Matichuk is not prevailing party |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Creech, 58 Wash. 439 (1910) (early statement of common‑grantor principle)
- Thompson v. Bain, 28 Wn.2d 590 (1947) (common‑grantor may establish on‑the‑ground boundary overriding deed description)
- Winans v. Ross, 35 Wn. App. 238 (1983) (articulates two‑part common‑grantor test: agreed boundary and visible line to successors)
- Birchler v. Castello Land Co., 133 Wn.2d 106 (1997) (emotional distress damages recoverable under timber trespass statute)
- Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 174 Wn.2d 619 (2012) (discusses timber trespass statute purpose and interpretive principles)