Martin v. Orvold
| Decision Date | 09 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 53831-8-II |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MARK E. MARTIN and DEBRA A. MARTIN, husband and wife, Respondents, v. BENJAMIN ORVOLD and COREY ORVOLD, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Appellants. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Mark and Debra Martin had acquired a piece of their neighbors' land through adverse possession. The trial court also ordered injunctive relief in the Martins' favor and entered mutual restraining orders.
Barbara and Corey Orvold, the affected neighbors, appeal, arguing that several findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. They contend the trial court erred by concluding that the Martins satisfied the elements of hostility and open and notorious use necessary to prove adverse possession. The Orvolds also argue that the trial court abused its discretion by entering a restraining order against them. The Orvolds further assert that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees to the Martins without segregating fees for some claims. Both parties request attorney fees on appeal.
We affirm. We also award attorney fees to the Martins on appeal.
This case concerns a dispute over a gravel parking strip located in a cul-de-sac in Puyallup, Washington. After a three-day bench trial that involved testimony from 27 witnesses including the Martins, the Orvolds, and many neighbors, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. The following facts were found by the trial court after a bench trial and most of these facts are not in dispute.
The Martins and the Orvolds own property across the street from each other. The Martins' and Orvolds' properties are part of a residential subdivision that includes a private road running north to south and ending in a cul-de-sac. The private road runs down the center of a 60-foot-wide nonexclusive easement, and the road is narrower than the easement.
(Image Omitted.)
As shown in the photo above, the Orvolds' house is on the west side of the road and the Martins' house is on the east side of the road. The Martins' driveway was steep and only wide enough for one car at a time. In 1992, to make parking easier, add additional parking, and provide a flat space for their garbage cans, the Martins created a parking area below their driveway. The parking strip that the Martins built is the black triangular shaped area in the photo above.
As the red property boundary lines in the photo reflect, the Orvolds' property originally extended across the private road. In a summary judgment ruling and stipulation that the Orvolds do not appeal, the Martins were awarded title through adverse possession to the portions of the Orvolds' land east of the road abutting their property (part of the landscaped hillside and the Martins' driveway), except the parking area represented by the black triangle, which the Martins were awarded following a bench trial. This parking area is the subject of this appeal.
To create the parking area in 1992, Mark[1] "excavated and flattened a [7 foot by 25 foot] section of the hill" above the street. CP at 1004. He then brought in gravel and covered the surface of the parking strip. The Martins landscaped the hillside area above the parking strip by planting ivy. They then maintained the gravel parking strip and hillside landscaping.
The Martins never asked for and were never given permission from anyone else to create or use the parking strip. In 1993, Jon Pulicicchio, a prior owner of the Orvold property, told the Martins he had just learned that he owned the area where the gravel parking strip was located, as well as a portion of the landscaped hillside and the Martins' driveway. Pulicicchio also told the Martins that he obtained insurance coverage for those areas. The Martins did not ask Pulicicchio for permission to use or maintain his land and Pulicicchio did not give them permission to do so. Neither of the other prior owners of the Orvold property gave the Martins permission to use or maintain the parking strip, nor did they object to their use.
Members of the Martin family were the primary users of the gravel parking strip from 1992 to 2015, using the space "between 90-100 [percent] of the use, compared to the rest of the world." CP at 1006. Mark parked his truck in the gravel strip daily until 2008. Debra used the parking strip when it snowed, and her social guests also used it regularly. From 1992 until the mid-2000s, Mark's mother parked there several times a week to babysit the Martins' youngest daughter, Lindsey. Once Lindsey got a driver's license, she parked in the gravel strip daily from 2008 to 2012. The Martins' other adult children and grandchildren also used the parking strip when they visited.
The trial court found that property owners on the Martins' side of the road typically "treated the easternmost unpaved strip [of the easement] as extensions of their property" and used this strip for landscaping and parking, while property owners on the Orvolds' side of the road "typically did not. . . use or maintain the easternmost unpaved strip." CP at 1003. If someone other than an east side owner wanted to use the unpaved strip on the eastern side of the road, they generally asked permission of the "owner of the immediately abutting eastern lot," and this "usually only [occurred] on special occasions where overflow parking was needed." Id.
The trial court found that third parties only occasionally used the parking strip and "the Martins usually either gave their permission or allowed the parking as a neighborly accommodation." CP at 1006. The Orvolds do not dispute, however, that the Martins told two other neighbors not to park their vehicles in the parking strip.
The Martins were the only people who maintained the gravel parking strip. CP at 1006. The trial court found that "[t]here was no evidence presented that at any time between 1992-2015, the Martins ceased using or maintaining the [gravel parking strip, ]" but the Orvolds dispute this finding. CP at 1007.
In 2015, the Orvolds purchased and moved to the property across the street from the Martins. The Orvolds testified that they began using the parking strip in 2015, they believed they owned it, and the Martins did not initially object. The Martins and the Orvolds had a cordial relationship until April 2018, when Corey and one of the Martins' daughters got in a heated argument about the parking strip.
In May 2018, the Martins re-graveled the parking strip. The Orvolds then called the police, who talked to both parties but took no further action. Shortly after the police left, Corey pulled her car into the gravel parking strip, followed by another neighbor, Ryan Radke, who parked his car behind hers. The two "high fived" and then moved their cars about 20 minutes later. CP at 1009.
The trial court also found that the Orvolds' home security system recorded both audio and video. The trial court found that the Orvolds used their security system to make "illegal recordings of conversations that took place as far away as the Martins' driveway." CP at 1008.
The Martins sued the Orvolds in June 2018, arguing that they had established through adverse possession that the western boundary of their property was the "edge of the graveled area abutting the street and where [the Martins'] driveway, lawn, landscaping and graveled parking area abuts the street." CP at 5. The Martins and Orvolds each moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Martins' motion for the disputed portions of the Martins' driveway and landscaping on their side of the road, but not the graveled parking strip. The parties entered a stipulated agreement transferring title to the Martins for the portions of the disputed land resolved on summary judgment.[2] The parties continued to litigate their claims to the parking strip, however.
In November 2018, the Orvolds had large concrete barriers placed in front of the parking strip. The Martins requested an injunction ordering the Orvolds to remove the barriers, which the trial court granted. In response to cross motions for additional injunctive relief, the trial court "ordered the parties to stop photographing and filming each other on their own property or in the [gravel parking strip]." CP at 1009. Although the Orvolds removed the concrete barriers, both parties continued photographing and recording each other despite the court's order.
The parties proceeded to a bench trial to resolve the remaining issues related to the parking strip. After reciting its findings, the trial court concluded that the Martins had established the elements of adverse possession with regard to the gravel parking strip. Relevant to this appeal, the trial court concluded that the Martins' use of the parking strip was hostile for at least 10 years because the Martins used the gravel parking strip as a true owner would. The trial court emphasized that the Martins created the parking strip, never asked for and never received permission to use or maintain it, exclusively maintained it prior to 2015, gave some neighbors permission to use the strip, and excluded others.
The trial court also found that the Martins' use of the parking strip was open and notorious throughout the statutory period. The trial court concluded the Martins met the other elements of adverse possession. Title automatically vests in an adverse possession claimant when they have met the requirements for adverse possession for 10 years, and the trial court found that...
To continue reading
Request your trial