Ted Spice v. Bryan And Dorothy Bartleson
48075-1
Wash. Ct. App. UFeb 7, 2017Background
- Neighboring landowners Ted Spice (owns two parcels) and Bryan & Dorothy Bartelson (own three parcels) had prior litigation that produced three orders (Road Easement, Road Maintenance Order, and Water Line Order) resolving access and water issues on 58th St. Ct. E.
- Road Easement granted a permanent non-exclusive easement for ingress/egress and road improvements across Spice’s parcels; it did not expressly mention utilities.
- Road Maintenance Order addressed maintenance, cost sharing, and stated the easement "shall include all and any amenities within the easement areas such as paving, gravel, landscaping, common utilities, fences, etc." Parties disputed whether "common utilities" included a water line.
- Water Line Order expressly allowed Spice to cap lines and provided that Spice’s properties "will not be subject to any claim for easement for water, or water rights for the benefit of the Bartleson[s]."
- After the prior orders Spice capped the original meter-tied supply; the Bartelsons later used a water line routed along 58th St. Ct. E. through Spice’s property to supply their Five Acre parcel; Spice sued for trespass for misuse of the easement.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to the Bartelsons (finding water a ‘‘common utility’’ permitted in the easement), dismissed Spice’s trespass claim, and awarded statutory costs; the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spice) | Defendant's Argument (Bartelson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Road Easement/ Road Maintenance Order authorizes Bartelsons to install/use a water line through Spice’s property | The easement language and the Water Line Order foreclose any claim for water easement; "common utilities" does not expand the easement to allow water service | The Road Maintenance Order’s reference to "common utilities" permits installation/use of water line within the road easement | Held for Spice: Road Easement does not include utilities; Water Line Order expressly bars any claim for water easement, so Bartelsons have no right to water service across Spice’s parcels |
| Whether use/installation of the water line constituted a trespass (misuse of easement) | The Bartelsons misused the easement by installing/using a water line not authorized by the prior orders, satisfying trespass via easement deviation | The Bartelsons’ activity was permitted under the easement (common utilities) and therefore not a trespass | Held for Spice: Use was a misuse of the road easement and constitutes trespass; summary judgment to Bartelsons was erroneous and Spice is entitled to summary judgment on trespass |
| Whether the superior court properly awarded statutory costs to Bartelsons | Costs were improper because the court erred in granting summary judgment to Bartelsons | Bartelsons sought costs as prevailing party | Held for Spice: award of statutory costs to Bartelsons reversed; fees and costs on appeal awarded to Spice |
| Whether Spice’s motion for continuance/reconsideration and supplementary damage evidence should have altered summary judgment outcome | Spice sought time to develop damages and later submitted evidence of locating, removal cost, and appraisal | Bartelsons objected that the evidence was not newly discovered and would not change the legal ruling on easement scope | Held for Spice in substance: court erred in denying reconsideration as to outcome; case remanded to determine nature and extent of damages (trial court to assess damages) |
Key Cases Cited
- Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny, 124 Wn. App. 381 (2004) (easement owner trespasses when deviating from authorized easement use)
- Wallace v. Lewis County, 134 Wn. App. 1 (2006) (elements of trespass include invasion of exclusive possession and intentional act)
- Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873 (2003) (multiple orders entered together must be read in pari materia)
- Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condo. Ass’n, 184 Wn. App. 593 (2014) (summary judgment standard and appellate review explained)
- Elcon Const., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 174 Wn.2d 157 (2012) (material fact definition for summary judgment)
- Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 153 Wn.2d 780 (2005) (definition and importance of material facts for summary judgment)