Rinehold v. Renne

• Decision Date: 29 July 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 98694-1,98694-1
• Citation: 492 P.3d 154
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Floyd F. RINEHOLD and Clarissa E. Rinehold, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. Gary T. RENNE and Eleanor F. Renne, husband and wife, Respondents, Donald Duane DeNotta and Caron DeNotta, husband and wife, and D.D. DeNotta, LLC Defendants, School Employees Credit Union of Washington, a Washington Credit Union; Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Cascade Mortgage, a Washington Corporation; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as Nominee for Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Cascade Mortgage; Cavalry SPV I Limited Liability Company, a Washington limited liability company, as Assignee of HSBC Bank Nevada, Third Party Defendants.

492 P.3d 154

Floyd F. RINEHOLD and Clarissa E. Rinehold, husband and wife, Petitioners,

v. Gary T. RENNE and Eleanor F. Renne, husband and wife, Respondents,Donald Duane DeNotta and Caron DeNotta, husband and wife, and D.D. DeNotta, LLC Defendants,School Employees Credit Union of Washington, a Washington Credit Union; Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Cascade Mortgage, a Washington Corporation; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as Nominee for Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Cascade Mortgage; Cavalry SPV I Limited Liability Company, a Washington limited liability company, as Assignee of HSBC Bank Nevada, Third Party Defendants.

NO. 98694-1

Supreme Court of Washington.

Argued February 18, 2021

Filed: July 29, 2021

Stephen Talcott Whitehouse, Attorney at Law, P.o. Box 1273, Shelton, WA, for Petitioners.

Mark A. Wilner, John Douglas Cadagan, Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP, 600 University St. Ste. 2915, Seattle, WA, for Respondents.

Magnus Rune Andersson, Hanson Baker Ludlow Drumheller PS, 2229 112th Ave. Ne Ste. 200, Bellevue, WA, Melissa Elaine Chapman, Farleigh Wada Witt, 121 Sw Morrison St. Ste. 600, Portland, OR, for Other Parties.

GORDON MCCLOUD, J.

¶1 The Rinehold and Renne families¹ dispute the location of the shared boundary line between their respective Mason County properties. They agree that the property was subdivided in the 1950s by surveyor W.O. Watson and that the boundary line is where Watson located it. But they disagree about where Watson located that boundary.

¶2 The Rineholds commissioned a professional retracement survey of the property line in 2015. They contend that the survey definitively establishes the boundary location, absent a countervailing survey or adverse possession. Thus, they claim, they are entitled to partial summary judgment as to the "record title" location of the boundary. The Rennes contend that inconsistencies in the 2015 retracement survey and ambiguity in Watson's use of the terms "street" and "road-way" create a dispute of material fact that must go to a jury.

¶3 We agree with the Rennes and affirm the Court of Appeals.

FACTS

I. A MASON COUNTY SURVEYOR CREATED THE BOUNDARY IN 1952

¶4 Surveyor W.O. Watson subdivided the Mason County Sunset Beach area in 1952. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 29-32, 206, 208. Watson's contemporary plat maps show that the parcel now owned by the Rennes sits slightly back from State Route (SR) 106, narrowing from 102 feet across on its northern side to 55 feet across on its southern side. CP at 29, 206. That parcel is bordered along its eastern and southern sides by a narrow strip that Watson labeled "street." CP at 32, 208. Watson's maps indicate that the "street" is 42 feet across at the northern edge of the Renne parcel. CP at 29, 206.

¶5 In 1955, Watson conveyed what is now the Renne property to Albert Harold Johnson by warranty deed (1955 Watson-Johnson deed). CP at 144-45. That deed described the property. CP at 144. From the northwestern corner of the parcel, the property extended "102 feet to [the] Northeast corner of the tract hereindescribed and West side of road-way." Id. From there, the property continues "South 10°00' East along Westerly margin of said road-way" for 415 feet before turning "still along Northwesterly margin of said road-way 55 feet" to the southwest corner. Id.

¶6 Watson conveyed other subdivided parcels at Sunset Beach to various other individuals. But he did not convey the parcel labeled "street" and described as a "road-way," instead "conced[ing it] to belong to those tracts numbered one, two, three, four, five for ingress and egress of owners of same." CP at 29, 32, 144. It now belongs to the Rineholds, subject to Watson's easement.

II. SUBSEQUENT OWNERS HAVE COMMISSIONED THREE SURVEYS OF THE BOUNDARY LINE SINCE 1955

¶7 In 1979, surveyor Roger Lovitt created a plat map of a portion of the Sunset Beach area. CP at 34. Lovitt marked the north side of the Rennes’ (then Johnson's) property as exactly 102 feet, consistent with Watson's plat map and description. Compare CP at 34 (Line N), with CP at 29, 144, 206.

¶8 By 1994, Joan Addington had obtained the parcels originally retained by Watson, including the "street" or "road-way" that is now the Rinehold property. CP at 36-43. She commissioned a survey from Daniel Holman, who provided a metes and bounds description of each parcel. Id. Holman's findings were inconsistent with the previous Watson and Lovitt surveys in at least two specific ways.

¶9 First, Holman followed a different angle along the now-disputed boundary than that described by the Johnson deed and followed by Lovitt. Compare CP at 36 (S 09°51'16" E), with CP at 34 (S 10°00'00" E), 144 ("South 10°00' East along Westerly margin of said road-way"). Second, Holman noted that the "road-way" or "street" (then a part of Addington's "Lot 3") extended 52.14 feet along SR 106, contradicting Watson's original labeling of 42 feet. Compare CP at 36 (marked as L2 and L3 added together), with CP at 29, 206.² No explanation of either of these discrepancies appears in the record.

¶10 In 2004 and 2005, the Rineholds purchased two lots from Addington, including the "road-way." CP at 51-54. The deed referenced the lot numbers from Holman's 1994 plat map as the property conveyed. CP at 53.

¶11 The Rennes purchased their property in 2006. CP at 48-49. The metes and bounds property description on the deed to the Rennes mirrored the description from the 1952 Watson-Johnson deed, including the reference to the "road-way." CP at 49.

¶12 In 2015, the Rineholds hired Holman to conduct a new survey of their property. CP at 22. Holman calculated the relevant boundaries and distances consistent with his own prior 1994 survey and inconsistent with the Watson and Lovitt maps in the same two ways mentioned above. Compare CP at 27, with CP at 36. Based on where he located the boundary, he noted encroachment by the Rennes and by the Rineholds’ neighbors to the east into what he designated the Rineholds’ property. CP at 27. Holman also marked a "gravel road" running through the center of the Rineholds’ property. Id.

III. THE RINEHOLDS SUED THE RENNES TO QUIET TITLE

¶13 In May 2017, the Rineholds filed a quiet title action against the Rennes, alleging that they "wrongfully used or constructed improvements upon" and took "other actions upon or proximate to" their property, thereby "creat[ing] a cloud on" their title. CP at 3.

¶14 In May 2018, the Rineholds moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Holman's 2015 survey was "a true, correct, and accurate survey and representation of the record title" to both their property and the easterly boundary line of the Rennes’ property. CP at 8-9. They sought to definitively establish the "line of record title as determined by a proper survey" between the properties, leaving other issues, such as adverse possession, for trial. CP at 18.

¶15 The Rennes opposed summary judgment, arguing that the term "road-way" in their deed was ambiguous: it could mean "the physical roadway itself" (the narrow strip Holman labeled "gravel road") or "the abstract concept of a roadway" (the entire portion of the Rinehold property that Watson labeled a "street"). CP at 66.³ The Rineholds argued that only a surveyor's opinion could "counter" their motion and that the Rennes had not provided such an opinion. 2 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (July 2, 2018) at 37. Notwithstanding Watson's "road-way" and "street" language, the Rineholds claimed there was "no proof that there was even a road in existence" in the 1952-1955 time frame at issue. Id.⁴

¶16 In support of their motion, the Rineholds submitted a declaration from Holman. Holman did not believe the "references to the roadway in the Renne chain of title" could possibly describe the "present, physical roadway" (his "gravel road") because "the description would not close by twelve feet more or less" and "[b]eing familiar with Watson's work, he would not have made that significant a mistake." CP at 23-24.⁵

¶17 The trial court questioned the inconsistency between Holman's and Watson's measurements as to the width of the "road-way." 2 VRP (July 2, 2018) at 49 ("[C]an you account for how Holman's at 52' and Mr. Watson was at 42'?"). The Rineholds’ attorney responded, "I can't answer that" and stressed that the issue had not been raised. Id. at 49-50. The attorney said that "it may affect the east line of the [Rinehold]^{[6 ]} property. But the only evidence before this Court right now is that the west line is all consistent." Id. at 50.

¶18 Despite the inconsistencies, the trial court granted the Rineholds’ partial summary judgment motion. CP at 193-94. It stated that the deed language was "at least potentially ambiguous" and looked to extrinsic evidence to determine "whether there [was] an issue of material fact regarding the location of the westerly boundary of the roadway." 1 VRP (July 16, 2018) at 5. Despite Watson's references to a "road-way" and a "street," the court found "no evidence" as to "whether the roadway existed at the time the [Watson] deed was drafted." Id.

¶19 Regarding the inconsistencies between Holman's and Watson's surveys, the trial court deferred to Holman: "Mr. Holman has taken this as well as any other irregularities similar to these ... into consideration and provided his expert opinion based upon all the considerations as further described in his declaration." Id. at 7. It went on:

In short, when it comes to surveys the Court does not look to perfection, that all evidence matches up perfectly. Instead, the Court relies upon the evidence presented to determine whether any of the imperfections rise to the level of a genuine issue of material fact.

In this review, the Court is able to rely upon experts, such as Mr. Holman, to provide an opinion on whether the boundary line can be established, how it can be established and where it is located. With no expert counter-opinion related to the survey line the Court finds

...