Steve Swinger v. Douglas J. Vanderpol
74703-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Dispute over ownership of land on the east bank of the Nooksack River between appellant Steve Swinger (claims ownership by avulsion) and respondent Douglas Vanderpol (claims ownership by accretion/reliction or adverse possession).
- Swinger applied to a federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; Whatcom Conservation District prepared planting plans that included the east-bank area Vanderpol claimed.
- Vanderpol wrote letters to the District asserting ownership; the District suspended Swinger’s application pending resolution of ownership.
- Swinger previously sued his title insurer alleging three acres east of the river belonged to him; a state court granted partial summary judgment finding Swinger had not proven ownership and the case was later dismissed with Swinger waiving appeal.
- Vanderpol filed a federal quiet title action; Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the United States did not claim an interest. Swinger then sued Vanderpol in state court alleging unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and abuse of process.
- Superior court granted summary judgment to Vanderpol, dismissed Swinger’s claims with prejudice, and awarded Vanderpol statutory damages and fees under RCW 4.24.510; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Swinger’s Argument | Vanderpol’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survives | Swinger: Vanderpol was unjustly enriched by using land Swinger owns on east bank | Vanderpol: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of Swinger’s ownership; Swinger lacks ownership evidence | Dismissed — collateral estoppel precludes claim (Swinger already found not to have proven ownership) |
| Whether federal suit constituted abuse of process | Swinger: Filing federal suit (and including adverse possession claim) was improper and caused expenses | Vanderpol: Filing suit was proper litigation; dismissal for jurisdictional defect does not make it abuse of process | Dismissed — no evidence of ulterior purpose or improper act; carrying suit to conclusion defeats abuse-of-process claim |
| Whether communications with District constitute tortious interference | Swinger: Vanderpol’s letters to District interfered with Swinger’s contract and cost him program funds | Vanderpol: Communications to a government agency are immune under RCW 4.24.510; also Swinger cannot prove contract regarding disputed east-bank land | Dismissed — statutory immunity applies; also lack of valid contract because ownership precluded |
| Whether fee and statutory damages award under RCW 4.24.510 was proper | Swinger: Statute requires reporting potential wrongdoing; statute shouldn’t apply here | Vanderpol: Statute provides mandatory damages and fees for good-faith communications to agencies | Affirmed — statute does not limit immunity/fees to reports of wrongdoing; no bad faith found, so award stands; appellate fees tied to immunity defense allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29 (2000) (summary judgment standard)
- Pederson v. Potter, 103 Wn. App. 62 (2000) (elements for collateral estoppel)
- Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552 (1993) (collateral estoppel requirements)
- Young v. Young, 164 Wn.2d 477 (2008) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Cunningham v. State, 61 Wn. App. 562 (1991) (finality for collateral estoppel vs. appealability)
- Marguardt v. Fed. Old Line Ins. Co., 33 Wn. App. 685 (1983) (settlement dismissals and preclusion)
- Batten v. Abrams, 28 Wn. App. 737 (1981) (pro se litigant standards)
- Fite v. Lee, 11 Wn. App. 21 (1974) (abuse of process elements)
- Hough v. Stockbridge, 152 Wn. App. 328 (2009) (examples of abuse of process)
- Calbom v. Knudtzon, 65 Wn.2d 157 (1964) (requirement of valid contract for tortious interference)
- Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue, 120 Wn. App. 365 (2004) (discussion of legislative findings underlying RCW 4.24.500-510)