Tfas Kent, Llc, V. Tu-trinh Huynh, Et Ano
82999-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2022Background
- TFAS Kent, LLC purchased a commercial parcel next to property owned by Tu‑Trinh Huynh and Minh Van Bui and sued for an implied easement by prior use.
- TFAS served Huynh and Bui in late April/early May 2021; the defendants are limited‑English Vietnamese immigrants who did not understand the service requirements.
- TFAS obtained a default judgment awarding an implied easement on June 1, 2021; TFAS’s counsel had communicated with the defendants’ agent but did not notify them of the default proceeding.
- On June 30, 2021, represented by counsel, Huynh and Bui moved under CR 60(b)(1) to vacate the default, asserting excusable neglect, presenting chain‑of‑title documents, and showing the parcel abutted a public right‑of‑way.
- The trial court found excusable neglect and that defendants had submitted prima facie evidence of a defense (contradictory conveyance history, abutment to a public arterial, and that the requested 25‑ft easement covered much of their yard) and vacated the default judgment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in vacating the default judgment for lack of a prima facie defense | TFAS: defendants failed to produce substantial prima facie evidence defeating implied‑easement claim | Defendants: submitted evidence contradicting TFAS’s conveyance history and showing abutment to a public right‑of‑way, undermining implied easement necessity | Held: Court affirmed—defendants submitted sufficient prima facie evidence |
| Whether defendants’ language barrier and manner/timing of service constituted excusable neglect under CR 60(b)(1) | TFAS: service was proper; vacatur unwarranted | Defendants: limited English and the service timing/method prevented timely response, showing excusable neglect | Held: Court upheld trial court’s finding of excusable neglect |
| Whether vacating the default would substantially prejudice TFAS | TFAS: vacatur prejudices its asserted property rights | Defendants: acted promptly after learning of default; prejudice not substantial | Held: Court accepted trial court’s conclusion that no substantial hardship to TFAS barred relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696 (appellate standard: abuse of discretion review of vacatur)
- White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348 (establishes elements to vacate a default judgment under CR 60(b)(1))
- Boyd v. Sunflower Props. LLC, 197 Wn. App. 137 (elements for easement implied by prior use)
- Adams v. Cullen, 44 Wn.2d 502 (discusses implied‑easement requirements)
- Silver v. Strohm, 39 Wn.2d 1 (prior use and implied easement doctrine)
- Hellberg v. Coffin Sheep Co., 66 Wn.2d 664 (unity of title as absolute requirement for implied easement)
- Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576 (default judgments disfavored; preference for merits)
- Rush v. Blackburn, 190 Wn. App. 945 (guidance on abuse of discretion and default judgments)
- TMT Bear Creek Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., 140 Wn. App. 191 (review focuses on what is just and equitable in vacatur decisions)