Tefft v. Barber

MICHAEL TEFFT and ANGELA TEFFT, husband and wife, and Washington residents, and DAWN ALLEN and JASON HAENKE, Washington residents, Respondents, v. RICHARD C. BARBER, and DEBRA L. CURTIS, Washington residents, Appellants, and BRADLEY STUTLAND, a Washington resident, and tenant to Appellants, and SANDRA LIVINGSTON, a Washington resident, and tenant of Appellants. Additional Parties.

No. 54038-0-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

June 29, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUTTON, J.

This appeal arises from a property dispute concerning three easements. Michael and Angela Tefft and Dawn Allen and Jason Haenke (hereinafter property owners) now own the property allegedly subject to the three easements, respectively parcels B and E. Richard Barber and Debra Curtis previously owned the parcels and granted the easements. The superior court ruled that the three easements by Barber and Curtis were invalid and terminated them, ordered that Barber and Curtis's tenant(s) vacate the land owned by the property owners, granted partial summary judgment, and certified the case for interlocutory review under CR 54(b). Barber and Curtis appeal the CR 54(b) order, the order for partial summary judgment to the property owners, the order on entry of final judgment, and the order denying reconsideration.

We hold that the superior court did not err by (1) adopting the requisite findings of fact and entering the CR 54(b) order (2) granting partial summary judgment to the property owners and invalidating the three easements, or (3) denying Barber and Curtis's motion for reconsideration. We affirm the superior court's orders for entry of a final judgment for partial summary judgment, and for denial of reconsideration.

FACTS

I. Background

This map demonstrates where each parcel is located:

(Image Omitted)

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 658.

A. Current and Former Property Owners: Parcels B and E

At the time of the three easements at issue on appeal, Curtis owned parcel B to the west and Barber owned parcel E to the east and parcels A and C to the north. Parcels B and E share a property line. A cabin^[1] straddles the property line between parcels B and E. In July 2010, Curtis granted a cottage easement to Barber allowing him use of a cabin that was built over both parcels.

Barber's property, parcel E, was foreclosed in September 2010, and Curtis's property, parcel B, was subject to sale in lieu of foreclosure in November 2010. After Barber and Curtis lost their properties, they claimed the easements gave them ongoing rights despite the loss of their parcels, and they relied on the easements to rent out the cottage.

The Teffts now own parcel B. Allen and Haenke now own parcel E.

B. Easements

1. The First Cottage Easement

Barber and Curtis both granted the first cottage easement over both parcels B and E. The first cottage easement (No. 200906260301) stated that it was granted from "Grantor: Richard C. Barber (parcel(s): A, C, E) [and] Debra L. Curtis (parcel B)," to "Grantee: Richard C. Barber (parcel C)," filed on June 26, 2009. CP at 44 (capitalization altered). At the time this easement was issued, Curtis owned parcel B and Barber owned parcel E.

2. The Access Easement

At the same time that the first cottage easement was granted, Barber (parcel E) and Curtis (parcel B) granted an access easement to Barber (parcels A and C). It stated that an access easement (No. 200906260300) was granted from "Grantor: Richard C. Barber (parcel E) [and] Debra L. Curtis (parcel B)," to "Grantee: Richard C. Barber (parcel(s) A and C)," filed on June 26, 2009. CP at 51 (capitalization altered).

3. The Second Cottage Easement

The second cottage easement (No. 201007160586) filed on July 16, 2010, was granted solely from Curtis to Barber. At that time, Curtis still owned parcel B and Barber still owned parcel E. The second cottage easement stated in relevant part:

There is a cottage constructed on a portion of Parcel B, which Mr. Barber owns. The purpose of this Easement Agreement is to grant Mr. Barber an easement for the cottage on Parcel B. The easement allows the cabin to occupy Parcel B as well as gives the Grantee the right to use an area surrounding the cabin which is depicted on Exhibit B on the PRIZM Surveying Inc. site plan.

CP at 58.

C. Harm Caused To the Current Property Owners

In support of their motion for partial summary judgment, the current property owners filed detailed declarations. They described the problems created by Barber's and Curtis's misuse of the three easements and related issues with the tenant living in the cabin including access to the cabin. The issues included maintenance, taxes and insurance, security issues, misplaced mail, yelling, trespassing, blocking the driveway, trash pickup, property damage, threats, and other similar actions.

Barber and Curtis routinely yelled at the property owners. The Teffts' children were afraid to play outside. Barber's and Curtis's misuse of the easements jeopardized the current property owners' security because they rented out the cottage without informing the property owners.

Barber, his tenant, and their pets repeatedly trespassed on the Teffts' property, outside the easement areas. Barber's tenant blocked the driveway with vehicles. Tenant mail and packages were misdelivered to the property owners and tenant trash pick-up was incorrectly billed to the Teffts because there was no legal address to distinguish the cabin from the Teffts' home.

Barber and Curtis "threaten[ed] to turn the cottage into an [a]irbnb [rental] or offer it as a homeless shelter." CP at 24. The property owners feared that this type of use would further heighten their privacy and security concerns regarding their homes.

Barber and Curtis repeatedly damaged the Teffts' property. Curtis ran over driveway light fixtures with her car and threatened to remove the security gate the Teffts installed along their rear property line after they were robbed. Barber and Curtis drove over their yard. Barber failed to pay for the water bill associated with the cottage, causing the Teffts to pay over $2, 300 for cottage water bills dating back to 2014 on Barber's behalf just to keep the water running to their own home.

Barber and Curtis claimed that they owned the cottage. The property owners responded that the ownership of parcel B and parcel E was a matter of public record, along with the responsibility for the corresponding property taxes.

II. Procedural History

The property owners filed their motion for partial summary judgment on March 1, 2019. On March 29, the superior court granted partial summary judgment. The court determined that the three easements were invalid and may be terminated by the property owners. The court ordered Barber and Curtis to vacate the invalid easements within 30 days and to post a bond until they vacated to protect the property owners from further liability and property damage.

On August 16, 2019, the superior court certified its order under CR 54(b) for interlocutory appellate review and adopted the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court explained that the "over-arching issue" concerning the invalidity of easements, "if upheld, would bring finality to the case." Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Aug. 16, 2019) at 9, 10. The court ruled that the validity of the easements, as well as the consequences of any invalidity were appropriate issues for interlocutory appellate review. The court also explained that it would retain jurisdiction over remaining issues because they have not yet been addressed and were not appropriate for interlocutory appellate review. Thus, the scope of this appeal is limited to the invalidity of the three easements and the consequences of any invalidity.

Barber and Curtis appeal the order on CR 54(b), the order on entry of final judgment, the order denying their motion for reconsideration, and the order for partial summary judgment.

ANALYSIS

I. Standards of Review

A.CR 54(b) Standard

We review CR 54(b) orders for an abuse of discretion. Hulbert v. Port of Everett, 159 Wn.App. 389, 404, 245 P.3d 779 (2011). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is "manifestly unreasonable, or the discretion [is] exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons." Nelbro Packing Co. v. Baypack Fisheries, LLC, 101 Wn.App. 517, 525, 6 P.3d 22 (2000). We give the superior court's judgment substantial deference. Nelbro, 101 Wn.App. at 525.

B. Summary Judgment Standard

We review an order granting partial summary judgment de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the superior court. Dunnington v. Virginia Mason Med. Ctr., 187 Wn.2d 629, 637, 389 P.3d 498 (2017). Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR 56(c). We construe all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dunnington, 187 Wn.2d at 638. A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 225, 770 P.2d 182 (1989). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must present evidence demonstrating that a material fact remains in dispute. Young, 112 Wn.2d at 225. If the nonmoving party fails to demonstrate that a material fact remains in dispute, and reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion from all the evidence, then summary judgment is proper. Dunnington, 187 Wn.2d at 638.

II. CR 54(b) Order: Invalidity of the Easements

Barber and Curtis argue that the...