Sieracki v. Sheeley

DENNIS SIERACKI and SALLY SIERACKI,husband and wife, Appellants, v. CHARLES L. SHEELEY, Respondent.

No. 35938-7-III

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

August 22, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SIDDOWAY, J. — Dennis and Sally Sieracki appeal the trial court's award of a total of $3,458.60 as reasonable attorney fees following their partially successful motion for summary judgment in an action against Charles Sheeley. They do not assign error to the trial court's failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law or ask us to remand so that such findings and conclusions can be obtained. The only remedy they seek on appeal is an order directing the trial court to award the full amount of fees they had requested.

Given the trial court's broad discretion in determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded and tenable bases for the amount of its award, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In or before May 2002, Dennis Sieracki, Gerald Sheeley, and others petitioned Benton County to vacate a 60-foot wide right-of-way adjoining their properties that had been quitclaimed to the county in 1963. The county commissioners agreed and, by resolution, they vacated the right-of-way subject to easements being granted to certain utilities and to the owners of parcels served by the right-of-way. Mr. Sheeley and Larry and Malvina Goodwin were evidently the successors in interest to whoever quitclaimed the right-of-way to the county in 1963, because they became the owners of the 60-foot strip and the grantors of an easement for ingress, egress and utilities to themselves and the owners of four other parcels served by a road then existing within the right-of-way. Those owners included Dennis and Sally Sieracki.

In addition to executing an easement agreement, the owners of the six parcels executed a road maintenance agreement. The agreement provided that a "60-foot wide roadway" would be "maintained free of obstructions and noxious weeds with four (4) inches of base coarse gravel and two (2) inches crushed gravel surface." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 52. But no road maintenance expense could be incurred except upon a majority vote of the owners, and the gravel roadway contemplated by the agreement was notconstructed for 15 years. Instead, according to a declaration of Charles Sheeley filed in the summary judgment proceedings below:¹

Prior to late 2015 the roadway was graded by Jack Humason and, I believe, by Gerald Sheeley, my late father and my predecessor in interest. To that date the roadway was never prepared or maintained to an area any wider than twelve (12) feet.

In late 2015 and early 2016 I improved the road surface entirely at my expense. I moved dirt, drove on it, and watered it. The roadway, as noted above, previously was never wider than twelve (12) feet and the vast majority of the roadway was a wheel track eight (8) feet wide. There was at least one spot where there was a wider area because users drove around a rock or a large puddle. I improved the road to a width of twenty-two (22) feet. After I improved the road, there were no puddles and there was no necessity for anyone to venture off the roadway as I graded it.

CP at 121.

In the spring of 2016, Mr. Sheeley planted a jalapeno pepper crop in the south 25 feet of the portion of the easement area located on his property. According to Mr. Sheeley, the peppers "were planted entirely outside the then existing roadway as I had improved and widened it," and "[n]o part of the land in which the peppers were planted was within any part of the easement that had ever been used for ingress and egress or for a roadway." Id.

In late July 2016, a lawyer for the Sierackis wrote to Mr. Sheeley to advise him that he was taking actions that impaired the Sierackis' "access easement rights and theirrights under the Road Maintenance Agreement." CP at 197. The lawyer relied on language in the road maintenance agreement stating that "[t]he Owners agree that the Roadway"—meaning "a 60-foot wide roadway"—"shall be maintained free of obstructions" and would be developed as a gravel roadway. CP at 52. The letter took the position that "the entire 60-foot strip" identified by the easement and addressed by the road maintenance agreement "may not be impaired by a use that is incompatible with maintenance of a roadway." CP at 198. It went on to state:

For a variety of reasons, the graveling of the road has not yet occurred, but the Sierackis have obtained bids and do intend to complete that work so that the road is consistent with the intent of the parties when the easement was granted. At this time, the Sierackis are asking that you honor the covenants and restrictions now in place on the 60-foot easement area and that you discontinue all farming activities on that area.

Id.

Mr. Sheeley did not respond to the letter and, on October 20, 2016, Andrew Smythe, a lawyer for the Sierackis, mailed to Mr. Sheeley a complaint asserting three claims: breach of the road maintenance agreement, misuse of easement, and trespass. The complaint was not filed at that time. The complaint alleged that the Sierackis "intend to install a gravel roadway" and that Mr. Sheeley had failed to remove his plantings as requested. CP at 4. By that time, Mr. Sheeley had harvested his pepper crop, but the remnants of the crop and underlying plastic were still in place. According to Mr.Sheeley, this was because pulling up the remnants and plastic would create a problem with blowing dust.

Nineteen days after the complaint was mailed to Mr. Sheeley, a written proposal to construct a gravel roadway was prepared by Mr. Sieracki. Mr. Sieracki proposed to construct and maintain not a 60-foot wide, but a 20-foot wide roadway, at his own expense (although with an exception for human caused damage). He proposed to locate the roadway in the center of the 60-foot easement so that it would not be disturbed by activities of the holders of utility and irrigation easements that ran along the north and south sides of the easement area. His proposal emphasized:

As a condition of this proposal, all obstructions to the 60 foot wide "Roadway" Easement must be removed by November 21, 2016, as the road contractor will not proceed if any structures/crops exist within the 60 foot wide zone.

If there are no obstructions, then it is believed construction on the Roadway can be started in about one week.

CP at 141.

A meeting of the parties to the easement and road maintenance agreement was held to vote on Mr. Sieracki's proposal on November 11, 2016. All present, including Mr. Sheeley, agreed to the proposal, although as minutes prepared by Mr. Sieracki reflect, "Larry [Goodwin], Kathy [Humason], and Charles [Sheeley]" agreed "with the provision for written dust mitigation during the removal of plantings." CP at 105. According to Mr. Sheeley, this statement in the minutes is partially incorrect; he claimsthat the dust mitigation proviso was that Mr. Sieracki agree in writing to take care of any dust created by the crop removal, for the rest of the winter. Mr. Sheeley acknowledges that subject to this proviso, he agreed at the meeting to remove the crop remnants by the November 21 date identified in Mr. Sieracki's proposal.

When Mr. Sheeley had not removed the crop remnants by November 21, the Sierackis' lawyers caused Mr. Sheeley to be served with their complaint on November 26. Mr. Smythe also called Mr. Sheeley to ask why he had not removed the crop remnants. According to Mr. Sheeley, he had not removed them because Mr. Sieracki had not yet delivered the promised agreement to control any resulting dust. After speaking with attorney Smythe, Mr. Sheeley removed the remnants of the crops on November 27. The Sierackis' contractor did not construct the road until April of the following year.

On December 30, 2016, the Sierackis' complaint was filed in Benton County.² According to their lawyers, this was "so that they might recover the fees incurred in getting Defendant to remove his crops." CP at 185. Six months after the Sierackis filed their complaint, in July 2017, the Sierackis moved for summary judgment on their three claims.

Among materials submitted by Mr. Sheeley in opposition to summary judgment were declarations from the owners of three of the six parcels benefitted by the easementand road maintenance agreement stating that Mr. Sheeley's 2016 pepper crop "interfered with no one's use of the roadway or eaement [sic] nor did it interfere with anyone's ingress and egress," that it "was a temporary use of a never used part of the easement," and that "[t]he crop planted by Mr. Sheeley was actually an improvement as he removed weeds that had been growing there." CP at 145-47.

The trial court granted the Sierackis' motion for summary judgment on their claim for breach of the road maintenance agreement, repeatedly referring to Mr. Sheeley's actions in planting a pepper crop as a "technical" violation of the agreement. CP at 275. It otherwise denied the motion, observing that Washington case law provides that the owner of property subject to an easement is free to use the property in ways that do not interfere with or overburden the easement. The Sierackis' claims for misuse of the easement and trespass were later dismissed by stipulation. In orally ruling at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the trial court expressed dismay at how the matter had been handled:

And technically under this road maintenance agreement and the facts where it's been acknowledged by [Mr. Sheeley] that at least part of that area was used at times for ingress and egress, that the [Sierackis] are entitled to a summary judgment regarding the violation of the road maintenance agreement.

And I say that, I guess, somewhat reluctantly, because it seems to me that this was a case that I would have hoped would have been resolved well short of this matter ever coming to court.

I think there's been a substantial, potentially even greater, I guess, incurring of

...