Ricardo G. Garcia et ux v. Ted Henley
34189-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Fence encroachment on Garcia property escalated with each repair by Henleys since 1997.
- The 1997 replacement extended roughly 67 feet further onto Garcia land with a wooden fence.
- In 2011, the Henleys further moved the fence six inches onto Garcia land, encroaching about 33.5 square feet overall.
- Garcias sought ejectment for the 2011 intrusion and damages; the trial court found ejectment warranted and that adverse possession had transferred title to the Henleys for earlier intrusions.
- The trial court adopted an equitable remedy: keep the fence in its 2011 location, grant title to the Henleys for the encroached land, and award Garcia $500; ordered boundary adjustments and tax/survey actions.
- Garcias appealed, arguing improper consideration of Arnold criteria and inappropriate remedy; the panel affirmed, concluding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion under Arnold/Proctor in denying ejectment? | Garcias argue Arnold/Proctor require ejectment or explicit factors on record. | Henleys contend equitable relief allowed; comprehensive boundary adjustment valid. | No abuse; liability-rule remedy supported by record. |
| Whether Arnold factors must be stated on the record to deny ejectment? | Garcias claim the five Arnold factors must be explicit findings. | Henleys contend factors need not be on the record if supported by evidence. | Not required to have express Arnold findings; record supports factors. |
| Whether the court properly applied a boundary adjustment rather than ejectment or damages alone? | Garcias seek ejectment and reversion of land; damages are insufficient remedy. | Court balanced equities; adverse possession and boundary alignment justify adjustment. | Equitable boundary adjustment justified; damages and title shift acknowledged. |
| Did the trial court consider the impact of prior encroachments and adverse possession on remedy? | Garcias emphasize long-standing encroachments foreclosing title transfer. | Court considered entire boundary changes and acquisitive rights. | Remedy addressed cumulative encroachments and title by adverse possession. |
| Is the selected remedy a win-win under Proctor/Arnold framework? | Garcias would prefer ejectment and restoration; unlikely to gain otherwise. | Remedy provides title certainty and minimal damages, reflecting equity principles. | Remedy sustained as appropriate under equitable discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143 ((1968)) (five factors for denying ejectment; strict evidentiary burden; sacred property right)
- Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d 491 ((2010)) (evolution between property and liability rules; equity may dictate alternative remedies)
- Bank v. Bufford, 90 Wash. 204 ((1916)) (early encroachment jurisprudence influencing balancing approaches)