Glover v. Canaday

Decision Date18 July 2022
Docket Number83286-7-I
PartiesTODD G. GLOVER and CHRISTINA S. GLOVER, Respondents, v. PHILLIP CANADAY, Appellant.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

TODD G. GLOVER and CHRISTINA S. GLOVER, Respondents,
v.

PHILLIP CANADAY, Appellant.

No. 83286-7-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

July 18, 2022


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MANN, J.

Phillip Canaday appeals the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of his counterclaim asserting unlawful detainer in an action filed by his tenants for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and breach of the lease. Canaday also challenges the trial court's determinations, following a bench trial, that he breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and that the tenants substantially prevailed in the proceeding.

Canaday tried to employ summary unlawful detainer procedures by filing a counterclaim in the tenants' lawsuit without complying with the statutory method of process required to start that special proceeding. Dismissal was proper. But without a finding that Canaday physically interfered with the tenants' possession or use of the

1

leasehold, the trial court erred in concluding that Canaday substantially deprived the tenants of the peaceable use and enjoyment of the leased premises. Nevertheless, because the trial court did not award damages and the erroneous finding of breach does not undermine the determination that the tenants substantially prevailed, we affirm.

I. FACTS

Todd and Christina Glover ("the Glovers") and Canaday own adjacent parcels of real property in a rural area of Snohomish County. Before January 4, 2016, the Glovers owned both parcels. The Glovers have lived on the parcel they currently occupy ("the Glover parcel") since 1981 and inherited the adjacent parcel ("the Canaday parcel") from Christina's mother in 2006.

The Canaday parcel is about 1.7 acres in total. The Glovers have historically used more than half of the Canaday parcel, an approximately one-acre pasture area, primarily for their horses and dogs.

In 2016, the Glovers conveyed their interest in the Canaday parcel to Todd's daughter, Juli Glover. Along with that conveyance, the Glovers leased back the pasture area ("the leased area") from Juli.

The lease, which expires in 2034, provides that the Glovers "shall use and occupy the Premises solely for the purposes of pasture, grazing, and maintaining domestic farm animals, gardening, horseback riding, and other equestrian uses, dog training and grooming, and general recreational uses compatible with the nature and location of the Property." The lease requires the Glovers to be "solely responsible" for maintaining any improvements and provides that the landlord has "no obligation

2

whatsoever to maintain or repair" the leased area. According to the lease, any maintenance or repairs required to keep the leased area in "good order" are the Glovers' obligation to be undertaken at their "sole expense."

Under the lease, the Glovers must provide the landlord with "access to the Premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspections," or repairs, although the landlord is expressly not obligated to perform any repairs. The lease specifies the type and amount of insurance the Glovers must maintain. The lease also provides that the Glovers "shall have and quietly enjoy the Premises" during the term of the lease.

On February 4, 2019, a few years after she acquired the Canaday parcel, Juli conveyed her interest to Canaday. Juli and Canaday were married in April 2019, but within a year, they separated and Juli moved out.

After the relationship between Canaday and Juli ended, disagreements arose between Canaday and the Glovers over their respective rights under the lease. Among other issues, there was conflict about the extent of Canaday's right to access the leased area, his desire to cut trees, and move and replace fencing on the leased area.

On November 4, 2020, through counsel, Canaday delivered an "Amended Thirty Day Notice to Comply with Lease or Vacate Premises" to the Glovers.[1] The notice cited RCW 59.12.030, a provision of the unlawful detainer statute, and alleged that the Glovers were not in compliance with the 2016 lease because they failed to "grant Landlord access as provided in the Lease to replace the fence, and add a fence to SW side of property, and remove dangerous trees." The notice also alleged noncompliance

3

with the lease based on the Glovers' alleged failure to insure the premises as required by the lease, "[e]ncroachment onto Landlord's adjacent property," "[i]nterference with Landlord's use and enjoyment" of his property, and "[f]ailure to provide proper notice."

On November 19, 2020, the Glovers filed a complaint against Canaday for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages. The Glovers alleged that, beginning in December 2019, Canaday began to assert a right to: 1) inspect the leased area "whenever he wished to," 2) cut down trees on the leased area that appeared to be healthy, 3) install fencing on a portion of the leased area where no fencing currently exists, and 4) replace existing fencing with "barb wire fencing." The Glovers claimed that following Canaday's issuance of the notice to comply or vacate, they had "substantial fear" that Canaday would seek to terminate the lease and begin unlawful detainer proceedings against them. The Glovers asked the court to "construe the lease and hold that there exists no factual or legal basis to support Defendant Canaday's Amended Notice." The Glovers also asserted that Canaday interfered with their right to quiet enjoyment of the leasehold by asserting rights under the lease without legal or factual basis. They asked the court to enjoin Canaday from further interference with their right to quiet enjoyment.

In answer to the complaint, Canaday alleged that the Glovers breached the terms of the lease by 1) refusing to allow him access to the leased area unless they were present, 2) refusing to allow him to replace fencing even though a survey showed that the existing fence encroaches on his property, 3) refusing to allow him to complete fencing and install a gate between the two parcels, 4) refusing to allow him to prune or remove "dangerous" trees, and 5) refusing to maintain adequate insurance coverage.

4

Canaday asserted that the Glovers were unlawfully detaining the premises because they failed to cure their noncompliance with the lease or vacate following receipt of his amended notice and sought a writ of restitution. Besides terminating the lease, Canaday requested an award of damages based on the Glovers' alleged breaches of the lease.

In March 2021, Canaday delivered to the Glovers a second 30-day notice to comply or vacate. Canaday alleged that by "piling" sawdust along the fence line, the Glovers breached the lease and committed "waste."

The Glovers filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Canaday's claim for unlawful detainer. After considering the briefing, supporting declarations, and argument, the trial court granted the motion. The order granting partial summary judgment also awarded attorney fees to the Glovers, in an amount to be determined at trial.

The Glovers, Canaday, Juli, and two expert witnesses later testified at a two-day bench trial on the remaining issues. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court resolved several issues identified by the parties in their joint pretrial conference summary.

The trial court found that the Glovers "did not strictly comply" with the lease's provision allowing Canaday reasonable access to the leased area. At the same time, the court concluded that the Glovers' breach was not "material" and that there was no basis to terminate the lease. On the other hand, the court found that Canaday violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment under the lease by demanding that the Glovers adjust their insurance coverage, proposing to remove trees that posed little to no danger, and

5

proposing to replace existing fencing with material not suitable for horses. The court determined that the neither party was entitled to damages because of the lack of specific evidence to support the claims for damages.

To resolve the Glovers' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, the court determined that two-hour visits up to six times per year amounts to "reasonable" access under the lease. The court permanently enjoined Canaday from future interference with the Glovers' right to quiet enjoyment and their right to use the leased area in accordance with the purpose of the lease. The court also found that the Glovers were the "prevailing party" for purposes of the lease's attorney fee provision and awarded fees and costs to the Glovers. Canaday appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

\ A. Unlawful Detainer

We review summary judgment orders de novo, "considering the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). Summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c).

Canaday contends that the trial court's dismissal of his counterclaim alleging unlawful detainer, before a hearing on the matter, was "premature."[2] Specifically, he

6

maintains that the court dismissed his claim on September 8, 2021, although the "deadline to serve notice of an unlawful detainer hearing" had not yet expired. Although...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT