Zonnebloem, Llc, Respondent/cross-app v. Blue Bay Holdings, Llc, Appellant/cross-resp
49308-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Blue Bay owned a building that historically received power and cable via overhead lines from a PSE pole on Zonnebloem’s parking lot, running across Mandl’s building to Blue Bay.
- Blue Bay demolished and rebuilt its building; PSE required a written easement (2 feet each side of the line) from Zonnebloem and Mandl before reconnecting along the historical route.
- Zonnebloem and Mandl would not execute PSE’s proposed easement (they sought a termination clause); PSE refused to reconnect and Blue Bay rerouted power at >$50,000 cost.
- Blue Bay sued, asserting (1) a prescriptive easement for the power/cable route and (2) damages for wrongful interference when Zonnebloem and Mandl refused to grant PSE an express easement.
- Trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the damages/interference claim; after bench trial it found Blue Bay had a prescriptive easement and that Mandl adversely possessed Area #3.
- On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on the interference claim and affirmed the bench trial rulings (prescriptive easement and adverse possession) in the unpublished portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether servient owners’ refusal to grant an express easement to PSE (broader than the prescriptive route) is unlawful interference giving rise to damages | Blue Bay: refusal to grant PSE an easement unreasonably interfered with its prescriptive easement and is a question of fact | Zonnebloem/Mandl: owners may refuse to surrender property rights; denying a broader express easement is reasonable as a matter of law | Court: refusal to grant the broader express easement was not unreasonable interference as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Blue Bay established a prescriptive easement for the historical power/cable route | Blue Bay: used the route openly, continuously, adversely for 10+ years; therefore prescriptive easement exists | Zonnebloem/Mandl: use was permissive or insufficiently adverse | Court: substantial evidence supports implied finding of adverse use and prescriptive easement; bench judgment affirmed (unpublished) |
| Whether Mandl adversely possessed Area #3 | Mandl: exclusive, open, continuous, hostile use for 10+ years | Blue Bay: evidence of non-exclusivity and insufficient possession | Court: substantial evidence supports adverse possession of Area #3 by Mandl; bench judgment affirmed (unpublished) |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded under RCW 7.28.083 | Both sides sought fees as prevailing parties on title issues | Each argued prevailing-party status | Court: neither party substantially prevailed on appeal overall; fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (discussing standard of review for summary judgment)
- Gamboa v. Clark, 183 Wn.2d 38 (elements and presumptions applicable to prescriptive easement)
- Cuillier v. Coffin, 57 Wn.2d 624 (inference of adverse use from long, unchallenged use and principles on roads/neighborly acquiescence)
- Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419 (affirmative-act interference theory where servient owner’s refusal to undertake ministerial act was held unreasonable)