Maier v. Giske

223 P.3d 1265 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In the 1940s, D's grandparents acquired several properties. D acquired her parcel from her father and began living there in 1978. In 1976, the executrix of the grandparent's estate sold a portion of this property to the Luehrs family; The deed included a non-exclusive easement over a strip of land 15 feet in width. Eventually, that property was conveyed to P. Each instrument conveying the property contained the same easement description. D's son, Max Batres, acquired the portion of grandparent's estate lying immediately south of the D's property. The disputed easement runs over the northern 15 feet of this parcel. Batres does not reside on the property, and D acts as its caretaker for him. There is a gravel driveway linking the three parcels. Tension existed since 1982 up to 2004 when P removed a southern boundary fence damaging a wax myrtle tree D had planted. P also removed a large camellia near D’s front porch. D contracted to have a new fence installed on her son's property. P objected in that they had an easement across the northern 15 feet of Batres' property based on their deed. P claimed the new fence was interfering with their right to access the easement area, so they could build a vehicle turnaround. As the construction crew was installing the fence, P argued with D, and after the crew left, she pushed over one of the fence posts. P eventually sued D for trespass, nuisance, and interference with their easement rights. D claimed that the easement's scope was limited to the existing driveway and that it was extinguished by adverse possession or abandonment. D also sought to quiet title based on adverse possession to (1) the two-foot strip between the Batres property and the Whetstones' fence, (2) the southwest corner of D's property near her house, and (3) the northwest corner of D's property. D also requested damages for injury to various plants and the loss of lateral support to her bluff. D moved for summary judgment in that the easement was void for failure to comply with the statute of frauds because it did not sufficiently describe the servient estate. The court dismissed P's claims. The court awarded D treble damages for the injured plants under Washington's timber trespass statute along with $7,000 in emotional damages. Both parties appealed.