Empress Estates LLC v. Doyle

9 Wn.App.2d 1040

EMPRESS ESTATES LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, and ZOHIER SALEEM, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. TIMOTHY DOYLE and TERRI DOYLE, Husband and Wife and the marital community thereof, Respondents/Cross-Appellants.

No. 50323-9-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

June 25, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Sutton, J.

Empress Estate LLC and Zohier Saleem^[1] appeal two final orders from a dispute with Timothy and Terri Doyle over a shared road easement. Saleem argues that the superior court erred when it (1) did not require the Doyles to post an injunction bond but required Saleem to post a bond as the party requesting a preliminary injunction and an amended preliminary injunction (2) found Saleem in contempt for parking more than 30 vehicles on its property in violation of the preliminary injunction; (3) imposed punitive sanctions; and (4) issued a permanent injunction that permitted the Doyles to retain a wire fence within the road easement.

The Doyles cross appeal the amended final order on permanent injunction. The Doyles argue that the superior court erred when it (1) ordered them to replace a cedar fence with a wire fence and remove gateposts within the easement without a finding that either could establish an adverse possession claim; (2) enjoined them from placing a fence in the future within the unused portion of the easement area; (3) allowed a total of 68 vehicles to park on the Empress property; and (4) ordered them to remove a speed bump within the easement without a finding that the speed bump unreasonably interfered with Saleem's use of the easement.

We hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Saleem, as the party asking for both a preliminary injunction and an amended preliminary injunction, to post a bond while not requiring the Doyles to post a bond. We also hold that the superior court erred by imposing a $500 civil fine and a $1, 500 damage award against Saleem for contempt violations because they were punitive sanctions and we vacate both sanctions. We further hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by holding Saleem in contempt for violating the 2015 amended order for preliminary injunction by allowing more than 30 vehicles to park on his property. As to the Doyles' cross appeal, we hold that all of their arguments fail. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate the sanctions.

FACTS

I. Background

This appeal arises from a dispute between neighbors over the use of a shared road easement. Empress Estates is accessed by a 60-foot easement called Empress Lane, a private paved road crossing the Doyles' property. Empress Lane is a recorded road easement and is the sole means of ingress and egress to the Empress property. Saleem purchased Empress Estates in 2012, and it had been used as a bed and breakfast inn. The Doyles own rural property near the Empress property.

The Cowlitz County Building and Planning Department receive complaints about Saleem operating an event center and had concerns regarding Saleem's use of the property. The county had approved Empress Estates to operate as a five-room bed and breakfast inn, not as an event center. After multiple alleged zoning violations, a hearing took place on June 23 2017. The hearing officer found that the existing building on the Empress property was not sanctioned as an event center because Saleem had not retrofitted the sprinkler system within the existing building. Despite the limited approval, the hearing officer found that Saleem, as the owner of Empress Estates, had continued to hold large events on the Empress property. Due to the lack of adequate parking for the events, many guests parked their cars along the private road easement, Empress Lane.

The events held at Empress Estates disrupted the Doyles' rural lifestyle due to loud music, headlights, cars parked adjacent to their property, and occasional intruders who tried to touch their horses. The Doyles photographed the patrons and took other actions to deter the Empress visitors. The Doyles allegedly erected a gate with a keypad and motion sensor across Empress Lane and the gate had, on many occasions, restricted Saleem's use of Empress Lane either because the Doyles allegedly locked the gate, or because the motion sensor failed to work. The Doyles also allegedly installed several speed bumps along Empress Lane to slow traffic associated with events on the Empress property.

In 2014, the Doyles allegedly destroyed signposts put up by Empress Estates directing visitors to the event center, hung several "No Trespassing" signs near the beginning of Empress Lane, and engaged in other harassing conduct. This alleged conduct included the following: hanging dead animal carcasses and severed animal heads within the easement area; feeding animals in the middle of the easement to impede traffic; causing an ice hazard by overflowing a sump pump across Empress Lane; obstructing the road easement with piles of horse manure, snow, traffic cones, garbage cans, trucks, and heavy machinery; and using social media to discourage potential clients from visiting Empress Estates.

II. 2013 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

In 2013, Saleem sued the Doyles and requested injunctive relief to (1) remove the gate the Doyles installed, (2) cease harassing his visitors, and (3) cease interfering with his use of the easement. On June 19, 2013, the superior court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Saleem and ordered (1) the Doyles to keep the gate they had installed across Empress Lane open; (2) Saleem to take "reasonable steps to insure that [his] invitees did not disturb the [Doyles];" (3) both parties to stop harassing one another; and (4) payment of a $5, 000 bond. Clerk Paper's (CP) at 72-73. Specifically, the court's order stated, "Bond is set [at] $5, 000," without specifying which party was required to pay the bond. CP at 73. Subsequent orders clarified that Saleem was the party required to pay the $5, 000 bond.

In 2015, Saleem and Empress Estates sued the Doyles, alleging interference with the easement, tortious interference with business expectancy, damage to property, nuisance, outrage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The superior court consolidated the 2013 and 2015 cases.

III. Contempt Motions and 2015 Amended Order on Preliminary Injunction

In April 2015, the parties filed cross-motions for contempt, alleging violations of the 2013 order granting preliminary injunction. A commissioner of the superior court heard the motions and found both parties in contempt of the order, imposed additional restrictions on both parties, and amended the order. On April 22, 2015, the superior court entered an amended order on preliminary injunction.

In the 2015 contempt proceeding, Saleem filed a declaration stating that the county had not limited the number of vehicles allowed on the Empress property, and stating that there were parking spaces for more than 85 vehicles which were not within sight of the Doyles' property. Based on this declaration, the superior court increased the number of vehicles that were permitted to park on the Empress property for events from 10 to 30 in its amended order on preliminary injunction.

The 2015 amended order on preliminary injunction enjoined the plaintiff, Saleem, as follows:

a. No more than 30 motor vehicles may be on [Saleem's] property at the same time;

b. [Saleem] and his invitees are not to park on the access easement, and [Saleem] must enforce this prohibition with respect to his invitees;

c. The motion-activated light which [Saleem] has installed is to be deactivated, moved so that it faces away from [the Doyles'] property, or shielded; and

d. [Saleem] and his representatives and invitees are not to photograph or videotape anything on the access easement or on defendant's property, other than in the presence or with the consent of counsel for both parties.

CP at 868.

The 2015 amended order also enjoined the Doyles as follows:

a. [The Doyles are] not to linger within 50 feet away from the gate located on the access easement, other than when [they are] simply passing through the area;

b. [The Doyles] and [their] representatives are not to photograph or videotape anything on the access easement or on [Saleem's] property, other than in the presence or with the consent of counsel for both parties; provided, however, [the Doyles] may continue to utilize his surveillance camera to view his own property and the access easement;

c. [The Doyles] shall not park machinery or equipment in the roadway that is the access easement;

d. [The Doyles] shall not damage or destroy any signage relating to [Saleem's] business.

CP at 868.

The 2015 amended order stated that all aspects of the original order on preliminary injunction remained in full force and effect, and the amended order supplemented the original preliminary injunction.

IV. Embratora Property and New Multi-Purpose Building

In November 2015, Saleem purchased an adjacent property called Embratora, and installed 25 additional parking spaces on that property for the event center. In early 2016, Saleem filed plans with the county to build a new multi-purpose building on the Empress property, incorporate the extra parking spaces on the Embratora property, and add 13 additional parking spaces next to the new building. The county issued the permits and construction began.

The properties owned by Saleem and the Doyles are in a designated RR-2 area, ^[2] but are not otherwise zoned. Julius Ledgett created the easement known as Empress Lane for "ingress and egress." CP at 583. He stated in his declaration, "We did not intend to place any restrictions on the use of these easements and anticipated that the properties...