Board of Regents of University of Washington v. City of Seattle, 52583-8
| Decision Date | 30 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 52583-8,52583-8 |
| Citation | 741 P.2d 11,108 Wn.2d 545 |
| Parties | , 41 Ed. Law Rep. 372 BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, and the State of Washington, and Unico Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in the State of Washington, Appellants, v. The CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, its officers, agents, employees, and agencies, including the Mayor and the City Council, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., James B. Wilson, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary L. Ikeda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Williams, Lanza & Gibbs, Robert H. Lorentzen, Seattle, for appellants.
Douglas N. Jewett, Seattle City Atty., Gordon F. Crandall, Asst. City Atty., Seattle, for respondents.
The plaintiffs appeal a summary judgment order which holds that the City of Seattle owns an easement for street purposes over Fourth Avenue. The trial court order requires the plaintiffs to abide by Seattle City Ordinance 111554, tear down the Fourth Avenue skybridge and repair any damage caused by its removal. The City cross-appeals from the trial court's refusal to enforce that portion of the ordinance which imposes street use fees assessed for 1981 to 1985 as a condition of stay.
We hold that the plaintiffs are equitably estopped to challenge the 1906 condemnation judgment which established a City easement for street purposes over Fourth Avenue and, absent a record of the City's proceedings, refuse to review the City ordinance that requires UNICO to remove the skybridge. We also find that the trial court properly preserved this action by refusing to require payment of street use fees as a condition of stay. The trial court's rulings are affirmed.
In 1861 the State of Washington acquired title to the "Metropolitan Tract", 10 acres of land in downtown Seattle. By 1893 the University of Washington through its Board of Regents managed the tract for the benefit of the University. See Callvert v. Winsor, 26 Wash. 368, 67 P. 91 (1901) ().
In February 1906 the City served a summons and petition in condemnation on the Board of Regents and the lessees of the Metropolitan Tract. The Attorney General failed to appear for the Board of Regents, and on December 7, 1906 a default judgment of condemnation and no compensation therefor was ordered against the State. Other parties did appear and receive compensation in that action. The City stipulated in oral argument on this appeal that the interest acquired by it in the 1906 action is properly characterized as an "easement for street purposes".
In March 1908 the State filed a complaint seeking to quiet title in the State of Washington to a disputed portion of the Metropolitan Tract encompassing Fourth Avenue, free of any City or other claims. Two stipulations were entered into in that action. The first stipulation provided that the quiet title suit shall not in any wise affect, vary, modify or change in any manner the proceeding heretofore brought by The City of Seattle to condemn a portion of the land described in plaintiff's complaint herein for the opening, extending, establishing, grading and regrading of Fourth Avenue through the University Ten Acre Tract, in the City of Seattle.
In the second stipulation the parties agreed that the State could have a decree quieting title in itself to the disputed portion of the Metropolitan Tract, not including Fourth Avenue and an alley along the west side of the Tract. In July 1909 the Superior Court quieted title to the Metropolitan Tract in the State, specifically "excepting therefrom the portion thereof condemned for 4th Ave." in the 1906 condemnation proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in State v. Seattle, 57 Wash. 602, 107 P. 827 (1910).
In August 1912 the Supreme Court determined that the lessee of the Metropolitan Tract was not benefited by and therefore not liable for special assessments to pay for improvements to Fourth Avenue because it was owned by the City by virtue of the 1906 condemnation proceedings. Inner-Circle Property Co. v. Seattle, 69 Wash. 508, 518, 125 P. 970 (1912). In August 1916 the Supreme Court enforced a stipulation in the 1906 condemnation case that required the Metropolitan Tract lessee to pay assessments for Seneca Street but not Fourth Avenue. Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. Seattle, 92 Wash. 660, 666, 159 P. 793 (1916).
In April 1971 the Seattle City Council and Mayor approved Ordinance 99871. That ordinance granted the current lessee of the tract, University Properties, Inc. (which later changed its name to UNICO, Inc. and is a plaintiff in this action), permission to construct and maintain a pedestrian skybridge over Fourth Avenue for 10 years.
The parties dispute whether the City or Metropolitan Tract lessees paid costs of the City's various improvements to Fourth Avenue. UNICO does not deny that it paid skybridge permit fees to the City pursuant to Ordinance 99871.
In March 1981 UNICO applied to renew its Fourth Avenue skybridge permit. In February 1982 the City Council passed Ordinance 119422, which established "the procedure and criteria for the administration and approval of applications for permission to construct, maintain and operate pedestrian skybridges over and across streets, alleys and other public places within the City of Seattle." Under the ordinance the City may require a permittee to remove its skybridge if certain criteria are met.
On February 24, 1984, the City adopted and the Mayor approved Ordinance 111554. The ordinance renewed UNICO's skybridge permit from April 30, 1981, to April 30, 1985, and revised permit fees and other requirements. Ordinance 111554 also required UNICO to remove the Fourth Avenue skybridge at UNICO's own cost and expense and imposed an additional lump sum fee of $10,543 to cover the period of the permit from April 30, 1981, to April 29, 1985. The court has been provided with several letters, memoranda and interrogatories pertaining to the City hearings wherein Ordinance 111554 was adopted, but a record of those proceedings is absent from the clerk's papers.
On May 9, 1984, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction restraining the City from enforcing Ordinance 111554. On February 19, 1986, the trial judge signed an order of summary judgment for the City, ruling that the City possessed "[a]n easement for street purposes to that portion of Fourth Avenue within the Metropolitan Tract" by virtue of the 1906 judgment, the first 1908 stipulation and the 1909 judgment. The trial court found the City ordinances valid and enforceable, ordered the plaintiffs to remove the skybridge and, upon satisfaction of several conditions, stayed that order pending this appeal. The trial court refused to enforce permit fees from 1981 as a condition of the stay, reserving consideration of that fee provision to proceedings following appeal.
The plaintiffs sought direct review of all portions of the summary judgment order and the City cross appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to impose payment of the permit fees as a condition of the stay. We affirm the trial court's orders.
In reviewing a summary judgment order, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982); Blenheim v. Dawson & Hall, Ltd., 35 Wash.App. 435, 439, 667 P.2d 125 (1983). We will review only whether as a matter of law the agreed facts in this case support the trial court's summary judgment order. Fahn v. Cowlitz Cy., 93 Wash.2d 368, 373, 610 P.2d 857, 621 P.2d 1293 (1980).
The plaintiffs initially argue that the City's attempt to regulate the use of the Metropolitan Tract is an unconstitutional impairment of state government. The power to manage the Metropolitan Tract is vested in the University of Washington Board of Regents. RCW 28B.20.392; State v. Seattle, 94 Wash.2d 162, 165-66, 615 P.2d 461 (1980). As the City correctly points out, however, the Board of Regents' power can only extend to University-owned property, and city streets are regulable by the City. RCW 35.22.280(7) and (8). Our resolution of this case reveals that the City possesses an easement for street purposes over Fourth Avenue; hence, the City does not impair state government by regulating its own streets.
The plaintiffs assert that the University of Washington owns Fourth Avenue, and thus they are not subject to Seattle ordinances that require them to tear down the Fourth Avenue skybridge. The City asserts that it possesses an easement over Fourth Avenue and may therefore regulate the Fourth Avenue skybridge by ordinance.
The parties' briefs address several doctrinal approaches to resolve the issue of what rights they possess in Fourth Avenue, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, laches implied dedication, and equitable estoppel. Because we conclude the plaintiffs are equitably estopped to challenge the 1906 condemnation judgment, we do not address the remaining doctrines.
The elements of equitable estoppel are (1) an admission, statement or act inconsistent with a claim afterwards asserted, (2) action by another in reliance upon that act, statement or admission, and (3) injury to the relying party from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate the prior act, statement or admission. Group Health Coop. of Puget Sound, Inc. v. Department of Rev., 106 Wash.2d 391, 407, 722 P.2d 787 (1986); Shafer v. State, 83 Wash.2d 618, 623, 521 P.2d 736 (1974); Pioneer Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. State, 39 Wash.App. 758, 760-61, 695 P.2d 996 (1985); Department of Rev. v. Martin Air Conditioning & Fuel Co., 35 Wash.App. 678, 682-83, 668 P.2d 1286 (1983); Conversions & Surveys, Inc. v. Department of Rev., 11 Wash.App. 127, 135, 521 P.2d 1203 (1974). When the State acts in its proprietary capacity by disposing of public lands, "it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. City of Seattle
... 830 P.2d 318 19 Wash.2d 34 Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Roy W. and Kathleen ROBINSON, husband and wife, ... Board of Regents of Univ. of Wash. v. Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 545, ... ...
-
Kramarevcky v. Department of Social and Health Services
... ... No. 59514-3 ... Supreme Court of Washington, ... En Banc ... Dec. 2, 1993 ... , Goldmark & Bender, William Rutzick, Seattle", for respondents ... Page 740 ... \xC2" ... Harbor Air Serv., Inc. v. Board of Tax Appeals, 88 Wash.2d 359, 367, 560 P.2d ... , 853 P.2d 913 (private party); Board of Regents v. Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 545, 551, 741 P.2d 11 ... 521, 33 P. 1072 (1893) (city estopped from claiming it did not authorize ... ...
-
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Liberty Capital Starpoint Equity Fund Llc
... ... ; Respondent.Norcon Builders, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. GMP ... Lobsenz, Carne Badley Spellman, Seattle, WA, John T. Ludlow, Hanson Baker Ludlow ... of Regents v. City of Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 545, 551, 741 ... ...
-
Lybbert v. Grant County, State of Wash.
... ... GRANT COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON, Petitioner ... No. 67805-7 ... Supreme ... McDougall, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington ... the prior act, statement or admission." Board of Regents v. City of Seattle, 108 Wash.2d 545, ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...1070 (2012), review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1015 (2012): 17.2, 17.2(4)(b), 17.2(4)(e) Board of Regents of Univ. of Wash. v. City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 545, 741 P.2d 11 (1987): 3.10(3) Boffoli v. Orton, No. 63457-7-I, 2010 WL 1533397 (Wn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2010), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1019 (201......
-
§ 3.10 - Rights Acquired by the Public
...a city's right to assess a fee for permission to park along a street); see also Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wash. v. City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 545, 741 P.2d 11 (1987) (approving a city's right to charge a sky bridge permit fee for use of the space over the (4) Prohibited uses Public authori......