Staley v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 55951-0-II
• Parties: CHERYL STALEY and TERRY STALEY, a married couple, Appellants, v. LYNNETTE HOFFMAN; THOMAS HOFFMAN; LISA COLLINS; PAUL COLLINS; ALFRED HOFFMAN; DIANA HOFFMAN and her ESTATE; and ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL RESIDING ON THE PROPERTY OR CLAIMING BY, UNDER OR THROUGH ANY OF THEM, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

CHERYL STALEY and TERRY STALEY, a married couple, Appellants,
v.
LYNNETTE HOFFMAN; THOMAS HOFFMAN; LISA COLLINS; PAUL COLLINS; ALFRED HOFFMAN; DIANA HOFFMAN and her ESTATE; and ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL RESIDING ON THE PROPERTY OR CLAIMING BY, UNDER OR THROUGH ANY OF THEM, Respondents.

No. 55951-0-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

December 13, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Price, J.

Cheryl and Terry Staley appeal the trial court's order dismissing their claim for quiet title and granting Alfred and Diana Hoffman's counterclaim for quiet title. The Staleys argue that they proved all elements of adverse possession when their predecessors allegedly possessed the disputed property. Alternatively, the Staleys argue that they have a prescriptive easement over the disputed property. Finally, they argue the trial court's grant of attorney fees to the Hoffmans should be reversed. We conclude the Staleys did not prove their predecessors met the ten-year requirement for either adverse possession or a prescriptive easement. We also conclude the trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees to the Hoffmans. We affirm the trial court and grant the Hoffmans attorney fees for this appeal.

1

FACTS

I. Background

Terry and Cheryl Staley purchased a parcel of property on Winlock-Vader Road in Lewis County (south parcel) in 2014.^[1] The south parcel is bordered on the west by Winlock-Vader Road and on the south and east by the Olequa Creek. Due to a curve in the Olequa Creek, the south parcel narrows between the western portion of the south parcel where the Staleys' house sits, and a field (back field) that comprises the eastern portion of the south parcel.

The parcel of property (north parcel) directly north of the south parcel is owned by the Hoffman family: Alfred Hoffman, his children Lynnette Hoffman and Lisa Collins, and his children's respective spouses, Thomas Hoffman and Paul Collins. The north parcel is also bordered on the west by Winlock-Vader Road and on the east by the Olequa Creek.

At the time the Staleys purchased the south parcel, a fence that was originally built in 1962 (the 1962 fence) existed just north of the property line between the north and south parcels. The Staleys believed this fence represented the property line and used the property south of the fence but north of the property line (disputed property) to access their back field. In 2019, the Staleys began allowing, and charging, campers to use the disputed property to access the back field where campsites were located. The campers' use of the disputed property to access the back field caused a dispute between the Hoffmans and the Staleys as described below.

2

II. Inciting Incident

When the Staleys purchased the south parcel in 2014, the 1962 fence had not been maintained and was not continuous. The Staleys' title report explicitly stated that a fence existed that did not conform to the property line. The Staleys did not review county records or otherwise research the property before purchasing the south parcel.

A poorly defined path (upper road) existed from the Staleys' driveway to their back field, crossing over the disputed property. The Staleys used the upper road for vehicle access to the back field.

In 2016, the Collinses commissioned a survey of the north parcel, and stakes were erected on the property line. Members of the Staley family knocked some of the stakes over, and the Staleys continued to use the upper road.

When the Staleys opened campsites in their back field near the creek in 2019, campers also began using the upper road to access the campsites. Lynnette Hoffman approached Terry Staley and asked that the campers stop using the upper road. Terry responded that the Staleys had a right-of-way across the disputed property to access the back field.

Lynnette requested proof of the right-of-way through text messages with Cheryl Staley. Cheryl replied with dates for alleged easements, including one for a neighbor's drain field, but none of the easements referenced by Cheryl affected the north parcel or described land that fell within the north parcel.

Lynnette ordered a title report, which concluded that the Staleys did not have a documented right-of-way over the disputed property. On July 29, 2019, Lynette sent a letter demanding that the Staleys stop allowing campers to use the upper road on the disputed property.

3

The Staleys responded a few weeks later, demanding that the Hoffmans cease and desist from building a fence on the surveyed property line and cede the disputed property to the Staleys. The Staleys claimed they owned the disputed property. Not only did the Staleys continue to use the upper road, they also graveled it.

The Staleys filed a lawsuit to quiet title to the disputed property to them, or alternatively, grant them a prescriptive easement to use the disputed property. The Hoffmans filed a counterclaim to quiet title to them. As part of their counterclaim, the Hoffmans alleged the Staleys had improperly widened their driveway so that it now encroached on the property line.

The case proceeded to a bench trial.

III. Trial

At trial, the Staleys argued that their predecessors adversely possessed the disputed property. The Staleys asserted that this period of adverse possession began either when an old fence was built by their predecessor, Jacob Orni, or later when the 1962 fence was built. The Staleys also asserted that utility easements granted by their predecessors show adverse possession and their driveway's encroachment on the property line shows adverse possession.

The Hoffmans argued that the Staleys did not show all the elements for adverse possession. The Hoffmans also asserted that there was no evidence of any historical use of the upper road for a sufficient duration to create a prescriptive easement.

Multiple witnesses testified about the use over time of the disputed property. Eileen Wideman, the granddaughter of the Staleys' predecessor, Jacob Orni, testified. Wideman grew up on the south parcel, and there was a fence (the old fence) between the properties when she was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s. The old fence was straight and started at Winlock-Vader

4

Road, going back to the Olequa Creek. She characterized the fence as "older" and described a gate in the fence. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 122. The fence was used to keep farm animals on the north parcel by the Hoffmans' predecessors, the Turulas. Wideman explained that Orni gave the Turulas permission to enter the south parcel and cross over the creek from the south parcel.

Archie Curtis, a neighbor of the Turulas, also testified. Curtis explained that when he lived near the Turulas and the Staleys' other predecessors, the Jacobys, there was a fence between the properties. The fence he remembers was straight, starting at Winlock-Vader Road and continuing down to the Olequa Creek. Curtis left to join the Marine Corps in May or June of 1962. When he left, the old fence was still in place.

John Jacoby (Jacoby), the son of John Jacoby Sr. and Doris Jacoby, also testified. Jacoby testified that his parents purchased the south parcel from the Orni family, and he grew up on the south parcel. Jacoby testified that his father wanted to begin raising cattle on the south parcel, so his father and Arvil Turula built a new fence (the 1962 fence) to replace the old fence. Jacoby thought the fence was built in 1961 or 1962, when he was a child. Jacoby and his father helped Turula build the 1962 fence, but Turula built most of the fence. Jacoby estimated that he helped build the fence for four to five days. After it was built, Jacoby helped maintain the fence.

Jacoby testified that he did not know of an agreement between his parents and the Turulas that the fence represented the property line. However, Jacoby believed the fence was the property line because Turula "was a well-respected man" and Jacoby "[didn't] think he'd be putting a fence other than where it should have been." VRP at 58. After Jacoby's father passed away, his mother, Doris, married Ken Robinette. Jacoby and his family would use a lower road along the bed of the

5

Olequa Creek to access the back field of the south parcel. The Jacobys and Robinettes did not access the field any other way.

Alfred Hoffman testified that he bought the north parcel from the Turulas in 1972.^[2] When the Hoffmans purchased the north parcel, several cattle fences existed on the property, including the 1962 fence located roughly between the north and south parcels. Alfred had the north parcel surveyed when he and his wife, Diana, purchased it. Alfred knew that the 1962 fence was not the property line, and testified that the south parcel owners, the Robinettes, knew that the 1962 fence was not the property line. Alfred removed weeds and mowed south of the 1962 fence, and would pick plums from the trees south of the fence. Alfred gave the Robinettes permission to mow around their driveway on the disputed property. Both Alfred and his son-in-law, Paul, had the fields on the north parcel hayed.

Alfred and Diana Hoffman raised cattle on the north parcel until around 1985-1987. Prior to that point, Alfred only maintained the fences on the north parcel, including the 1962 fence, to keep his cattle on his property. He never moved the 1962 fence to the actual property line because "[t]here was no sense in moving [the fence] when it was still working" and it would have been "a lot of work." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 492, 497.

Sara Hancock testified for the Staleys. Sara is Jacoby's daughter and granddaughter of Doris Robinette. Sara spent time at the south parcel during summers and holidays while growing up. Sara and her husband purchased the south parcel from Doris in 2007. Her family created a path from the south parcel front yard, over the disputed property, and to the back field by riding

6

dirt bikes.^[3]...