Tammy Blakey & Flying T. Ranch, Inc. v. Reginald Wren & Brenda Wren
75449-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- Neighbors in Snohomish County: Blakey owned one parcel since 1990; the Wrens acquired adjacent parcel in 2004. A longstanding hedgerow and barbed wire fence marked the division for decades.
- Blakey removed the hedgerow and (in 2009) installed a new barbed‑wire fence she claimed replaced the historic fence; the Wrens claimed the new fence trespassed ~50 feet into their land.
- The Wrens sued to quiet title and for trespass; Blakey counterclaimed adverse possession. After a bench trial the court quieted title in the Wrens, found Blakey trespassed, and awarded treble damages plus fees (~$180,018).
- Posttrial, discovery disputes arose; Wrens produced seven photos but Blakey alleged two aerial photos (May 2009 and Aug 2011) were withheld. Blakey moved under CR 60(b)(4) (misconduct) to vacate the judgment based on the withheld photos.
- The trial court denied the CR 60(b) motion, imposed prefiling restrictions against Blakey for vexatious litigation, and awarded fees to the Wrens; Blakey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 60(b)(4) relief is warranted for alleged discovery misconduct (withheld photos) | Withheld aerial photos would show original fence location and support adverse possession or undermine damages; nondisclosure entitles her to vacatur | Withheld photos would not cure the deficiencies in Blakey’s adverse possession proof nor change the damages finding; any violation was harmless | Denied — no vacatur because withheld photos would not have prevented Blakey from fully and fairly presenting her case |
| Whether the withheld photos would establish adverse possession as a matter of law | Photos prove historic fence location and thus title by adverse possession | Even if historic fence location shown, Blakey failed to show required continuous, open, exclusive possession (hedgerow regrew after 1990; 10‑year period not met) | Denied — photos would not establish adverse possession; insufficient possession evidence remains |
| Whether additional discovery sanctions were required against the Wrens | CR 26 mandates sanctions for nondisclosure | Court already sanctioned the Wrens in the separate action; further sanctions discretionary and not required here | Denied — no abuse of discretion in declining additional sanctions |
| Whether prefiling restrictions were an abuse of discretion | Restrictions improperly limit access to courts | Blakey engaged in repeated, frivolous relitigation of the same claim despite prior adverse rulings and fee awards | Affirmed — court did not abuse its discretion imposing filing restrictions for vexatious litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. City of Woodinville, 175 Wn.2d 68 (discusses standards for boundary/possession issues)
- ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. Bell, 112 Wn.2d 754 (defines adverse possession/possession standards)
- Peoples State Bank v. Hickey, 55 Wn. App. 367 (misrepresentation/misconduct requires showing it prevented fair presentation)
- Roberson v. Perez, 123 Wn. App. 320 (materiality standard for discovery misconduct/new trial)
- Taylor v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 39 Wn. App. 828 (withheld evidence may support new trial when it enables a new theory of the case)