Gaskill v. City of Mercer Island

• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PETRIE; PEARSON, C. J., and SOULE
• Citation: Gaskill v. City of Mercer Island, 576 P.2d 1318, 19 Wn.App. 307 (Wash. App. 1978)
• Decision Date: 22 February 1978
• Docket Number: No. 3212-II
• Parties: Herbert L. GASKILL and Margaret Gaskill, his wife, Respondents, v. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent, and Albert Williams and Ethel J. Williams, husband and wife, Appellants.

Page 307

19 Wn.App. 307

576 P.2d 1318

Herbert L. GASKILL and Margaret Gaskill, his wife, Respondents, v. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent and Albert Williams and Ethel J. Williams, husband and wife, Appellants.

No. 3212-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Feb. 22, 1978.

Stevan D. Phillips, Hillis, Phillips, Cairncross, Clark & Martin, Seattle, for appellants.

Derrill T. Bastian, Arnold B. Robbins, Breskin, Rosenblume & Robbins, Alan F. Austin, Seattle, for respondents.

PETRIE, Judge.

By this appeal, Albert and Ethel Williams, husband and wife, challenge the trial court's attempted enforcement of a stipulation made in open court purportedly to effect a compromise and settlement of an action filed by Herbert L. and Margaret Gaskill, husband and wife, against the City of Mercer Island and Mr. and Mrs. Williams. We hold that the stipulation does not satisfy the requirements of CR 2A and that there was no meeting of the minds of all the parties to all the essential elements necessary to effect an agreement to terminate the action. Accordingly, we reverse the orders which attempted to enforce the alleged agreement.

For purposes of resolving the issues on appeal, a simplified description of the parties' property should suffice.

Tracts 2 and 3 of Lakeholm Addition to the City of Mercer Island are each elongated, rectangular lots 80 feet wide, fronting on East Mercer Way, extending easterly in excess of 400 feet, and sloping downward to the shores of Lake Washington. Tract 2 lies north of tract 3.

Mr. and Mrs. Gaskill own an irregular-shaped portion of tract 3. One parcel is lakefront property for a width of 40 feet and runs lengthwise along the southern one-half of the tract for approximately 90 feet; the other, adjoining the first, is a rectangular parcel 80 feet wide and 175 feet long. The Gaskill property does not extend all the way to East Mercer Way. However, an existing 12-foot easement along the southern boundary of tract 3, extending from the road to Gaskill's westerly boundary, services the Gaskill property as a driveway. Mr. and Mrs. Williams own the remaining portions of tract 3 and all of tract 2.

In 1974, the City of Mercer Island approved a short plat of the Williams' property, dividing their land into 4 separate parcels. Three of the newly platted lots, designated lots 1, 2, and 3, are 75 feet wide (the north 75 feet of Lakeholm tract 2). Lot 1 fronts on East Mercer Way, lot 3 fronts on Lake Washington, and lot 2 is the mid-portion of the north 75 feet of Lakeholm tract 2.

Newly platted lot 4 consists of Williams' portions of Lakeholm tract 3 (80 feet wide at street-front, subject to the 12-foot easement for Gaskill's driveway) and also includes an elongated 5-foot strip (the southern 5 feet of Lakeholm tract 2) which joins the Williams' lakefront portion of tract 3 to the street-front portion of their tract 3 property. Thus, the street-front portion of lot 4 is only 73 feet wide (see sketch below).

(See following illustration)

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Before approving the short plat, the City granted Mr. and Mrs. Williams a 2-foot variance from the normal minimum lot width requirement of 75 feet, for newly platted lot 4. Previously, the City had adopted an ordinance redefining the word "lot" which, in effect, authorized the lakefront and the street-front portions of lot 4, as joined by the elongated 5-foot strip, to be classified as one contiguous lot.

A significant part of the short plat included extension of the existing driveway northerly along the western boundary of the Gaskill property, in order to service lots 2 and 3 of the new plat. This was a source of major concern for the Gaskills, and they sought judicial review of several decisions which the City of Mercer Island had taken.

By writ of certiorari to the superior court, the Gaskills challenged (1) the City's approval of the short plat, (2) its grant of the 2-foot variance, and (3) its enactment of the ordinance which amended the definition of a "lot". After the City filed its return, the matter came on for hearing in July and again in September 1975. After protracted argument by counsel and several admonishments by the court to seek an amicable resolution of the dispute, counsel for all parties, together with Mrs. Williams, adjourned to the court's chambers on September 15, 1975 to discuss the possibility of resolving the issues. When all returned to open court, they were joined by Mrs. Gaskill, and the following record was made:

MR. BASTIAN: (Counsel for Gaskills) Your Honor, could we get into the record that we are continuing this subject to call and everybody has agreed that there is a sale price to the Gaskills for Lot 4 or the remaining portion of old Lot 3, Lakeholm Addition, for $62,500.00; each party to pay the customary closing costs.

May we have that kind of understanding?

THE COURT: As I understand, the matter is continued subject to call, that they will complete negotiations for the sale of Lot 4 to the Gaskills for the sale price of $62,500.00, details of the contract to be negotiated and the usual form now, I don't know how you want to negotiate the sale. That each party will pay the customary costs which, in my opinion, the sales tax to be paid by the seller and the title insurance paid by the seller and the filing fees to be paid by the buyer.

MR. BASTIAN: The which fees?

THE COURT: The filing fees to file the deeds and the documents. I believe that is usual, isn't it, Mr. Austin?

MR. AUSTIN: (Counsel for the City of Mercer Island) Yes.

THE COURT: Those are the terms.

MRS. GASKILL: We think the record should reflect in the proposed I am sorry to interrupt, is that all right?

THE COURT: That's fine.

MRS. GASKILL: That on the proposed plat that there is another five feet to be added on account of a variance situation. On the plat there has been another five feet added.

MR. BASTIAN: Your Honor, what she is saying, and I think actually this is for the benefit of Mrs. Williams

MRS. GASKILL: This is for the benefit of Mrs. Williams. We don't want the five feet.

MR. BASTIAN: When you take Lot 4 that goes five feet over in here (indicating), which she has added onto that lot from the old plat. It was Lot 2 and Lot 3, Lakeholm Addition. The boundary of that is down here. In order to get this variance they moved that over five feet (indicating).

THE COURT: You are willing that she take back that five feet?

MRS. GASKILL: That is what I am saying.

MR. BASTIAN: The understanding should be that the Gaskills are purchasing what was old Lot 3.

THE COURT: That's right, Lakeholm Addition. That is what my understanding is. That does give you a little advantage and that is the way it should be.

That is the extent of the stipulation made in open court. A dispute arose within days as to the full meaning of the stipulation.

We are required to evaluate the sufficiency of stipulations by the terms of CR 2A which provides as follows:

No agreement or consent between parties or attorneys in respect to the proceedings in a cause, the purport of which is disputed, will be regarded by the court unless the same shall have been made and assented to in open court before a court reporter, or entered in the minutes, or unless the evidence thereof shall be in writing and subscribed by the attorneys denying the same.

See also RCW 2.44.010.

It is apparent that the adjournment to chambers was for the purpose of attempting to totally dispose of the tripartite action then pending before the court. The result was a stipulation on the record that Mrs. Williams agreed to sell a parcel of land to Gaskills for $62,500. Although the trial court initially referred to this parcel as Lot 4 of the short plat, Mrs. Gaskill interjected that they did not want the five feet that had been added to Lakeholm tract 3 in order to provide sufficient width for lot 4 of the new plat. Ultimately, with assistance from Mrs. Gaskill and her trial counsel, the court expressed the understanding that Gaskills were purchasing only the property within the confines of the remaining portions of old lot (tract) 3 of Lakeholm Addition.

Although Mrs. Williams and her counsel were both in court, neither was asked to affirmatively assent to this sale. Nevertheless, we view their silent acquiescence as an implied consent to the sale of...