Steury v. Johnson, 16197-8-III

• Decision Date: 19 March 1998
• Docket Number: No. 16197-8-III,16197-8-III
• Citation: 957 P.2d 772,90 Wn.App. 401
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: Richard E. STEURY and Lois J. Steury, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Robert B. JOHNSON, Jr. and Judy R. Johnson, husband and wife, Appellants.

Page 401

90 Wn.App. 401

957 P.2d 772

Richard E. STEURY and Lois J. Steury, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Robert B. JOHNSON, Jr. and Judy R. Johnson, husband and wife, Appellants.

No. 16197-8-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 3,

Panel Seven.

March 19, 1998.

Brian R. Ragen, Spokane, for Appellants.

Robert E. Kovacevich, Law Offices Robert E. Kovacevich P S, Spokane, for Respondents. SCHULTHEIS, Chief Judge.

Robert and Judy Johnson own a lot by Liberty Lake. Richard and Lois Steury own the lot adjacent to and south of the Johnsons. A 20-foot wide easement runs along the eastern boundary of the Johnsons' lot to benefit the Steurys and other adjacent properties as a private road. Concerned about increased public traffic on the easement road, the Johnsons set up posts at the northern end of the easement and placed a cable gate across the entrance. The Steurys sued for a permanent injunction against gating the road. Their motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the Johnsons were permanently ejoined from gating the easement. On appeal, the Johnsons contend there are issues of material fact regarding the intended use of the easement, the changes in that use over the years and the relative inconvenience to the dominant easement owners. We reverse and remand.

The Steurys bought their lake property in 1967. After using the property as a summer home for 22 years, they rebuilt the house and moved onto the lot as their primary residence in 1990. The Johnsons bought the adjacent property to the north in 1990 and completed construction of a primary residence there late that year. Along the eastern border of the Johnsons' lot is a 20-foot wide easement for a private roadway (the 1955 easement) to be used by the adjoining landowners, including the Steurys. This roadway, which declines steeply from its northern entrance, has been used on a daily basis since the Steurys moved onto the property full time. The Steurys' deed also describes another easement for their benefit along the southern border of the Johnson property, from the eastern roadway to the Steury parcel.

By the summer of 1992, the Johnsons had decided that public use of the 1955 easement had increased to a dangerous and inconvenient level. They estimated that cars traveled down the easement from 50 to 60 times a day, all but 12 to 20 of those trips by nonresidents. Mr. Johnson installed concrete and metal posts on either side of the northern entrance and began asking drivers to use another route. When the traffic continued unabated, he installed a locking cable from post to post in the autumn of 1992. The Johnsons gave keys to each of the property owners benefited by the easement. Although the Steurys had been on a protracted vacation, they received two keys when they returned and found the cable up.

The Steurys filed a summons and complaint in October 1994 alleging the cable obstructed access to their home for them, for their friends and family, and for emergency services. They requested a permanent injunction against obstructing the 1955 easement, quiet title to the easement and quiet title to an overlapping legal description to the northern boundary of their property. In April 1995, the Steurys moved for partial summary judgment on the injunction and quiet title claims. After a hearing held in May, the trial court granted the partial summary judgment and enjoined the Johnsons from erecting a barrier of any kind across the easement. The Johnsons appealed in July 1995, but a commissioner of this court ruled that the order was not appealable as of right. After the Steurys abandoned their claim for damages and waived all remaining issues, an order of final adjudication was entered in October 1996 and the Johnsons again appealed.

The Johnsons contend the trial court erred in finding that a gate across the easement interferes with the use of the right-of-way as a matter of law. Citing Rupert v. Gunter, 31 Wash.App. 27, 29, 640 P.2d 36 (1982), they argue that the court should have balanced the inconvenience to the dominant estate with the hardship to the servient estate, and contend this balance involves questions of fact not properly decided in summary judgment.

We review the grant of a summary judgment de novo, considering the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wash.2d 801, 811, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); Cowiche Canyon, 118 Wash.2d at 811, 828 P.2d 549. While a question of fact is usually left to the trier of fact, when reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion, questions of fact may be determined as a matter of law. Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hosp., 56 Wash.App. 625, 628, 784 P.2d 1288,review denied, 114 Wash.2d 1023, 792 P.2d 535 (1990). Once the moving party has shown the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must set forth evidentiary facts rebutting the moving party's contentions and supporting the existence of a material issue of fact. Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wash.2d 355, 359, 753 P.2d 517 (1988).

A suit for an injunction is an equitable proceeding addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, to be exercised according to the circumstances of each case. Federal Way Family Physicians, Inc. v. Tacoma Stands Up For Life, 106 Wash.2d 261, 264, 721 P.2d 946 (1986); Rupert, 31 Wash.App. at 30, 640 P.2d 36. Appellate courts must give great weight to the trial court's decision, interfering only if it is based on untenable grounds, is manifestly unreasonable or is arbitrary. Federal Way, 106 Wash.2d at 264, 721 P.2d 946; Rupert, 31 Wash.App. at 30, 640 P.2d 36. Here, we...