Richardson v. Cox
| Decision Date | 10 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 19188-5-III.,19188-5-III. |
| Parties | William E. RICHARDSON and Lila Mae Richardson, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Harold COX and Bonnie Cox, husband and wife; Robert M. Tippett and Jane Doe Tippett, husband and wife, individually and the marital community thereof, and as General Manager and partner of Thanksgiving Limited Partnership; John Does 1 through 10 and Jane Does 1 through 10, husbands and wives, and the marital communities thereof, individually and as Partners of Thanksgiving Limited Partnership; and Franklin County, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Harvey Faurholt, Kennewick, for Appellants.
John G. Schultz, Leavy Schultz Davis & Fearing, Kennewick, Darin R. Campbell, Pasco, George Fearing, Leavy Schultz Davis & Fearing, Kennewick, for Respondents.
A property owner's dedication of land is a purposeful relinquishment of land for general and public use. The owner cannot reserve to himself any rights other than those compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. RCW 58.17.020(3). On the other hand, an easement is a nonpossessory right to use in some way another's land without compensation. City of Olympia v. Palzer, 107 Wash.2d 225, 229, 728 P.2d 135 (1986). Regarding an easement, "`[t]he respective rights of the two parties ... are not absolute, but must be construed to permit a due and reasonable enjoyment ... so long as that is possible.'" Thompson v. Smith, 59 Wash.2d 397, 408-09, 367 P.2d 798 (1962) (quoting City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co., 17 Cal.2d 576, 583, 110 P.2d 983, 133 A.L.R 1186 (1941)).
William and Lila Mae Richardson purchased a residential five-acre lot. The deed reserved a 30-foot easement for ingress and egress. Adjoining landowners to the west, Harold and Bonnie Cox, nonetheless constructed a roadway along the easement with the approval of Franklin County. The question before us is whether original quitclaim deeds (which reserved the easement for ingress and egress) and a later filed "Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions" (which provided for a roadway easement) amounted to a dedication of the easement for public purposes. We conclude that they do not and so reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand. The Richardsons' request for attorney fees and costs on appeal is granted subject to compliance with RAP 18.1.
Harold and Bonnie Cox and William and Lila Richardson own adjacent property on the outskirts of Pasco, Washington, in Franklin County. The Richardsons own Lot 1, a five-acre parcel that is part of a small subdivision developed by a predecessor in interest, Robert A. Tippett.1
Mr. Tippet filed a professional survey of his planned residential subdivision but he did not ever formally plat the property. He also filed a Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions (hereinafter Declaration) that applied to the five-acre residential lots, including Lot 1, the Richardsons' property.
The following portion of the Tippett Declaration is pertinent to our analysis:
This section of the Declaration reflects part of the language found in the reciprocal quitclaim deeds between the original landowners (Mr. Tippett and Mr. Thompson), which had reserved "a 30 foot road right of way for ingress and egress along the westerly boundary thereof."4 Mr. Tippett and Mr. Thompson recognized that the road right of way was necessary to ensure that no parcel of land would become landlocked. Accordingly, the deed to the Richardsons' property notes the easement for ingress and egress.
The Coxes own the western half of Section 8, which lies immediately west of the Richardson/Thanksgiving/Ashley Trust properties. Mr. Cox dedicated to the County a 30 foot wide parcel of land on the eastern border of his property that runs the entire length of Section 8. This dedicated property abuts the 30 foot road right of way easements running along the western edge of the Richardson/Thanksgiving/Ashley Trust properties. Mr. Cox contemplated that a county road would eventually be built along his dedicated portion and the 30 foot easements across the Richardson/Thanksgiving/Ashley Trust properties.
The following map, which is not drawn to scale, is included for ease of reference:
The Coxes have developed significant agricultural businesses on their property. They sold parcels of their land to others who also developed sizeable commercial agricultural businesses on the property. Mr. Cox determined that the rise in commercial development necessitated the building of a north-south county road that would connect his property to the main arterials in the area, Commercial Avenue, Foster Wells Road, and SR 395. Mr. Cox wanted the road built in order to handle the heavy commercial truck traffic necessitated by the commercial properties he owned.
On several occasions Mr. Cox approached Franklin County officials to request that the County build a road down the center of Section 8. The County consistently declined, citing inadequate funding for the project. In 1997, Mr. Cox volunteered to build the road at his own expense if the County would provide engineering services and supervise the construction, to which the County agreed.
As mentioned above, the entire 30 foot road easement on Mr. Cox's property had been properly platted and dedicated to the County for use of a public road. The Richardson/Thanksgiving/Ashley Trust properties, however, had only the 30 foot road right of way easement for ingress and egress, which had been noted on the survey map but never platted or dedicated. Accordingly, the County requested and received waivers, pursuant to RCW 36.81.030, from the Thanksgiving and Ashley Trust property owners to build the road down the center of Section 8. However, the County neither sought nor was given permission to build the road on the 30 foot easement across the Richardsons' property.
Despite this irregularity, the County designed and staked the road down the center of Section 8 for Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson immediately removed the stakes from his property. The County again staked the Richardson property and Mr. Cox dug the road according to the County specifications. This was done while the Richardsons were out of town on vacation. The construction across the Richardson property required removal of some of the Richardsons' fixtures, including a tree, irrigation lines, and a fence. The road was completed in July 1997.
The road was eventually dedicated to Franklin County after a petition and hearing process pursuant to chapter 36.81 RCW. The County accepted the road, which extended Commercial Avenue at the Pasco city limits to Foster Wells Road.
Claiming damages as a result of the road construction, the Richardsons commenced a lawsuit against the Cox and Tippett families as well as the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership on January 23, 1998. The complaint was later amended to add the County as a defendant.
A bench trial on the merits of the Richardsons' complaint was held in Franklin County Superior Court in August 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the court initially issued a memorandum decision substantially in the Richardsons' favor, concluding that the road right of way easement reserved in their deed would have been limited to property "legally described in the declaration of protective covenants and restrictions."5 The court determined that the Coxes were not authorized to use the easement for business interests that were not connected with the purpose for which the easement was created (i.e., for ingress and egress to the properties to the south of the Richardson property). The court initially found that the Coxes' use of the easement for commercial truck traffic constituted a misuse of the easement by "overburdening it."6 It ordered the County to pay the Richardsons the fair market value of the 30-foot strip of land across the western border of their property.
The County moved for reconsideration. However, before arguments on the motion were heard, the court changed its mind. It concluded that the Declaration, which "dedicated" a "right of way" reflected an intention on the part of the original landowners (Mr. Tippett and Mr. Thompson) to permit development of a public road across the easement.
The pertinent findings are:
IX.
The Court finds that the use of the words "dedicated right-of-way" in relation to "driveways" in Paragraph "N", referred to those "easements for roadways and installation and maintenance of utilities, irrigation and drainage facilities, 30 feet in width ... reserved along all lot lines and are shown on the recorded plat."
X.
It is in the [D]eclaration itself that the dedication of roadways is established, and the only other method for establishing a roadway would be a dedication. The drafter of the [D]eclaration inadvertently used the word "plat".
It was intended at the time the property was subdivided that a public roadway would be established in the area in question.
XI.
The Thompson Tippett partition deed, dated May 23, 1977, reserved a 30 foot road right-of-way for ingress and egress. The use of the word "road" coupled with the width thereof, indicates a road open to the public was intended.7
The pertinent conclusions are:
III.
The use of the words "dedicated right-of-way" in relation to "driveways" in Paragraph "N" referred to in those "easements for roadways and installation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of N. Spokane Cnty. Parks v. Spokane Cnty.
...such land, by the owner, for the use of the public, which has been accepted for use by or on behalf of the public.” Richardson v. Cox, 108 Wash.App. 881, 890, 26 P.3d 970, 34 P.3d 828 (2001). ¶ 43 To find a dedication, there must be “ ‘(1) An intention on the part of the owner to devote his......
- State v. DeSantiago, 71918-7.
-
Friends of N. Spokane Cnty. Parks v. Spokane Cnty., 32056–1–III.
...such land, by the owner, for the use of the public, which has been accepted for use by or on behalf of the public.” Richardson v. Cox, 108 Wash.App. 881, 890, 26 P.3d 970, 34 P.3d 828 (2001). ¶ 43 To find a dedication, there must be “ ‘(1) An intention on the part of the owner to devote his......
-
Kiely v. Graves, 84828–9.
...evidenced by the presentment for filing of a plat and its subsequent approval by the city. See RCW 58.17.020(3); Richardson v. Cox, 108 Wash.App. 881, 891, 26 P.3d 970, 34 P.3d 828 (2001). Thus, we turn to the statutes. ¶ 16 In Washington a statutory dedication to a city or town is governed......