Joseph Workman v. Jerald F. Klinkenberg ( 2018 )

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS OIV I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
2018 DEC -3 AM 9:23
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
JOSEPH WORKMAN,trustee, WCT
TRUST, a Washington trust, No. 77105-1-1
Appellant, DIVISION ONE
V.
JERALD F. KLINKENBERG and
SANDRA LEE KLINKENBURG,t
husband and wife; and CITIBANK, or
its successors and/or assigns, PUBLISHED OPINION
Respondents. FILED: December 3, 2018
.
SMITH, J. —Where use of another's property begins as a neighborly
accommodation, the party seeking a prescriptive easement must overcome the
presumption that the use was permissive and must show when and how the use
became adverse. Under Gamboa v. Clark, 183 Wash. 2d 38, 348 P.3d 1214
(2015), in order to overcome the presumption of permissive use, a litigant must
either demonstrate a use that was adverse and hostile to the rights of the
opposing party or show that the opposing party indicated that an easement was
granted. Because Joseph Workmanl did not present evidence raising a genuine
1' The true and correct spelling, "Klinkenberg," will be used in this opinion.
1 We refer to each member of the Workman family by their first name to
avoid confusion.
No. 77105-1-1/2
issue of material fact that either of these circumstances happened, summary
judgment dismissal of his prescriptive easement claims was proper. Additionally,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Klinkenbergs attorney
fees. We affirm and also grant the Klinkenbergs their attorney fees on appeal.
FACTS
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Carolyn and Marvel (Marv) Workman,
together with Clarence and Patricia Young, owned lot 129 of the Whidbey Shores
development on Whidbey Island. In Juy 1982, the Workmans purchased the lot
next door (lot 130) and sold their interest in lot 129 but continued to use a patio
and stairway on lot 129 as guests of the Youngs. In 1990 and 1991, the
Workmans transferred their interest in lot 130 to WCT Trust.
In 1992, David McClinton purchased lot 129 through a trust. McClinton
and Mary were business partners and close friends. In about 1994, they agreed
that the patio and stairway on lot 129, between their respective decks, would be
a shared recreational space. Together they paid for and built a brick patio, fire
pit, and railroad tie stairs descending to the concrete bulkhead (the disputed
area).
When McClinton decided to sell jot 129, Man/ requested that he have a
"first crack" at trying to find a friend to buy it "because of... the joint area" and in
order to "kind of continue this open concept.. . between the two properties."
Clerk's Papers(CP) at 359, 491.
In 1999, Mary's friends, Jill and Lydell Knudson, decided to buy lot 129
with their family, Jerald and Sandra LO Klinkenberg. When the Klinkenbergs
No. 77105-1-1/3
bought lot 129, Lydell Knudson informed them "that the Workmans occasionally
used the Lot 129 brick patio and fire pit, and asked whether [they] would permit
that use to continue." CP at 817. They agreed to give the Workmans permission
to use the area. In 2009, the KnudsonS transferred their interest in lot 129 to the
Klinkenbergs.
In 2013, Joseph, as trustee of WCT Trust, sent the Klinkenbergs a letter
regarding the boundary and placementi of a wooden planter box on the patio. In
2014, he sent another letter to the Klinkenbergs asking them to move the planter
box "pending clarification of the properly lines." CP at 842.
In 2015, Joseph, on behalf of the trust, filed a complaint in Island County
Superior Court, alleging adverse possession, acquiescence, estoppel in pais,
common grantor doctrine, and seeking adjustment of the boundary line. In
October 2016, the Klinkenbergs moved for summary judgment to dismiss all four
claims. Joseph amended his complaint to add claims for a prescriptive easement
and easement by estoppel over the disputed area. At the hearing on summary
judgment, the trial court summarily dismissed Joseph's claims on adverse
possession (with the exception of a small area encompassed by a railroad tie
planter), estoppel in pais, acquiescence, and the common grantor doctrine
because there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Workmans' use of
lot 129 was adverse rather than permissive. While not ruling on the added
easement claims, the trial court did note that "it seems fairly obvious that these
claims have no merit," especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision
on prescriptive easements in Gamboa. Report of Proceedings(RP)(Nov. 10,
No. 77105-1-1/4
2016) at 42. In that case, the Supreme Court held that there was no prescriptive
easement where a presumption of permissive use existed and the claimant did
not rebut that presumption by demonstrating a use that was adverse and hostile
to the rights of the owners or that the owners granted the claimants an easement.
Gamboa, 183 Wash. 2d at 52.
The Klinkenbergs, relying on Gamboa, moved for summary judgment,
arguing that the Workmans' use of the disputed area was permissive in its
inception and permitted as a neighborly accommodation. They further argued
that the Workmans did not make a distinct and positive assertion of a right hostile
to their rights and that they did not givel the Workmans an easement.
In opposition to summary judgment, Joseph argued that the agreement
between Mary and McClinton created "an area for joint or common use." CP at
450. In doing so, he cited McClinton's declaration, McClinton's deposition, and
Andrew Workman's deposition. The trial court granted the Klinkenbergs' motion
for summary judgment, explaining that "there is no evidence that any such
agreement was intended to be a permanent, irrevocable right to use the disputed
area." RP (Apr. 28, 2017) at 64.
Joseph moved for reconsideration, arguing that McClinton's testimony as
to McClinton's agreement with Mary inferred that their agreement was intended
to be permanent when viewed in the light most favorable to Joseph. In doing so,
he cited a new declaration by McClinton that stated the "agreement was
continuing and permanent" and that they "would never have invested the
substantial amounts of money, time and effort to construct the patio, fire pit, and
I4
No. 77105-1-1/5
stairs for an agreement for temporary use." CP at 195. On the Klinkenbergs'
motion, the trial court struck this declaration because it was not newly discovered
evidence. The trial court also denied Joseph's motion for reconsideration. In
doing so, it entered a very detailed mernorandum decision that outlined its
evidentiary rulings and thoroughly explained its ultimate decision. The court
concluded that "it would not be reasonable to construe McClinton's general
reference to 'an agreement' with [Marv] Workman to use the disputed area as
1
giving [Marv] Workman a permanent, irrevocable right to use the disputed area."
CP at 160.
The Klinkenbergs then moved for an award of attorney fees and
expenses. The trial court issued detailed findings and conclusions in support of
its award of attorney fees, which totaled $131,749, and entered judgment in the
same amount.
Joseph appeals.
ANALYSIS
Prescriptive Easement
Joseph argues that the trial court erred in concluding that there is no
genuine issue of material fact whether a prescriptive easement exists over lot
1
129. We disagree.
We review summary judgment Orders de novo. Keck v. Collins, 184
Wash. 2d 358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate
where there is ``no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of,law." Elcon Constr., Inc. v. E. Wash.
No. 77105-1-1/6
Univ., 174 Wash. 2d 157,, 164, 273 P.3d 916
1 5(2012)(alteration in original)(quoting
CR 56(c)). Although the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, if that party is the plaintiff and he fails to make a factual
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to his case, summary
judgment is warranted. Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wash. 2d 216, 225, 770
P.2d 182(1989). Once the moving party shows there are no genuine issues of
material fact, the nonmoving party must bring forth specific facts to rebut the
moving party's contentions. Elcon Const., Inc., 174 Wash. 2d at 169.
Additionally, we review a decision on reconsideration for abuse of
discretion. In re Marriage of Littlefield,'133 Wn.2d 39, 46, 940 P.2d 1362(1997).
The trial court abuses its discretion when its exercise of discretion is manifestly
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. King County v. Vinci
Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCl/Frontier-Kemper, JV, 188 Wn.2d 618,632,
398 P.3d 1093(2017).
Prescriptive rights are not favored in the law because they necessarily
work corresponding losses or forfeitures of the rights of other persons. Gamboa,
183 Wash. 2d at 43 (citing Nw. Cities Gas Co. v. W. Fuel Co., 13 Wash. 2d 75, 85, 123
P.2d 771 (1942)). "To establish a prescriptive easement, the person claiming the
easement must use another person's land for a period of 10 years and show that
(1) he or she used the land in an 'open' and 'notorious' manner,(2)the use was
'continuous' or 'uninterrupted,'(3)the use occurred over'a uniform route,'(4) the
use was 'adverse' to the landowner, and (5)the use occurred 'with the
knowledge of such owner at a time when he was able in law to assert and
No. 77105-1-1/7
enforce his rights." Id. (citing Nw. Cities, 13 Wash. 2d at 83, 85). "For a claimant to
show that land use is 'adverse and hostile to the rights of the owner' in this
context, the claimant must put forth evidence that he or she interfered with the
owner's use of the land in some manner." Id. at 52 (citing Nw. Cities, 13 Wash. 2d
at 90-91). "The claimant bears the burden of proving the elements of a
1
prescriptive easement." Id. at 43 (citing Nw. Cities, 13 Wash. 2d at 84).
Here, the issue is whether or not the Workmans' use of the disputed area
was adverse. "Permissive use is not adverse and does not commence the
running of the prescriptive period." Lee v. Lozier, 88 Wash. App. 176, 182, 945
P.2d 214(1997)(citing Washburn v. Esser, 9 Wash. App. 169, 171, 511 P.2d 1387
(1973)). There is "an initial presumption of permissive use to enclosed or
developed land Cases in which there is1a reasonable inference of neighborly
sufferance or acquiescence." Gamboa, 183 Wash. 2d at 47. "What constitutes a
reasonable inference of neighborly sufferance or acquiescence is a fairly low
bar." Id. at 51. Where use is "permissive in its inception," there is a
presumption of permissive use that "cannot ripen into a prescriptive right, no
matter how long it may continue, unless there has been a distinct and positive
1
assertion by the dominant owner of a right hostile to the owner of the servient
estate." Id. at 45 (quoting Nw. Cities, 13 Wash. 2d at 84).
Gamboa controls the outcome of this case. There, the Supreme Court
considered whether claimants in a prescriptive easement case presented
sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of permissive use. There, a gravel
road separated parcels of land owned by the Gamboas and the Clarks. Id. at 40.
7
No. 77105-1-1/8
For more than 10 years, the Gamboasfused the gravel road, the majority of
which was on the Clarks' property, to obtain access to their house and some of
their farmland. Id. at 41. The Supreme Court held that the evidence supported a
reasonable inference of neighborly sufferance or acquiescence because both
parties used the road without any disputes for many years and each was aware
of the other's use, but no one objected to it. Id. at 51. It also held that "the
Gamboas failed to overcome the presumption of permissive use because they
did not demonstrate a use that was adverse and hostile to the rights of the
Clarks, and they did not demonstrate that the Clarks indicated that they had an
easement." Id. at 52.
Here, Joseph did not provide evidence of a distinct and positive assertion
1
of a hostile right. Rather, he argued that the agreement between Mary and
McClinton to create "an area for joint or common use" raised a genuine issue of
material fact that the McClintons gave the Workmans an easement. CP at 450.
He presented several pieces of evidence supporting this theory. The first was
testimony from McClinton's deposition in which McClinton stated:
Mary and I talked about what to do with that area between the
houses. And we ultimately came up with the brick idea. So we just
split the cost, and he would work on it on the weekend, and then I
might come up the next weekend or — so we just — we worked on it
together.
CP at 408. He also explained that the "joint area" between the properties was
"just common area" that both parties and their children used and there was "no
specific division between our properties on that area." CP at 411. McClinton's
declaration stated, in relevant part:
8
No. 77105-1-1/9
4. As I testified during my deposition, in the early 1990s Mary
Workman and I agreed the area between our decks would be a
shared recreational space or Common Area. Accordingly, we
shared the cost to build a brick patio and fire pit.
5. Mary and !along with our kids and my brother built the patio
and fire pit. We also built a 'set of railroad tie stairs descending
down to the concrete bulkhead.
I
6. As we agreed both Mary and I used the Common Area. So did
my kids and Mary's kids. I understand Mary's kids continue to
use the Common Area to this day.
7. Also as agreed, both families worked to maintain the Common
Area. This maintenance largely consisted of power washing,
weeding, cleaning out the fire pit and the like.
8. When I decided to sell Lot 129, Mary requested that because
of the agreed Common Area that I sell to one of our friends
who would continue to honor the agreement.
CP at 387. Finally, Joseph presented testimony from the deposition of Andrew
Workman. In that testimony, the Klinkenbergs' counsel asked Andrew whether
he "had permission to use the patio as guests [of] Lot 129, including the
fireplace?" CP at 420. He responded,It's always been a common area. For
years and years we always used the fire pit." Id. When asked whether lot 129
owners have "permission" to use the area on the Workmans' side, he responded,
"Yeah." Id. Again, counsel asked whether he had "permission to use the part on
129" and he responded,"Dave McClinton when he—we used it as a common
area with Dave McClinton. I haven't had any discussions with the Klinkenbergs."
Id.
Based on this evidence, the trial court did not err in granting summary
judgment because Joseph failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption of
permissive use as required by Gamboa. The evidence presented by Joseph
9
No. 77105-1-1/10
does not raise a genuine issue of material fact that McClinton or the Klinkenbergs
intended to give the Workmans a prescriptive easement over the disputed area.
Nothing in the testimony cited above indicates that the "joint" or "common" use
agreement was intended to be permanent. Therefore, summary judgment was
proper and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joseph's motion
for reconsideration.
Joseph argues that Gamboa is distinguishable because there is evidence
that the Workmans provided consideration and no such evidence existed in
Gamboa. But, while the presence of consideration can be relevant in a
prescriptive easement case, it is not determinative. The real issue is whether
Joseph provided evidence that the agreement granted his family a permanent
right to use the disputed area, not whether there was consideration supporting
that agreement. In Gamboa, a prescriptive easement was not warranted
1
because there was no evidence that the Clarks granted the Gamboas a right of
easement. Gamboa, 183 Wash. 2d at 52 The same is true here. None of the
evidence provided establishes that McClinton or the Klinkenbergs granted the
Workmans a permanent right to use the disputed area.
Joseph relies on two pre-Gamboa Court of Appeals decisions to argue
that consideration is determinative: Lee and Washburn. But in both Lee and
Washburn, there was direct evidence that consideration was given in exchange
for a right of easement. Because no evidence exists in this case that the
agreement was for a permanent right to use the disputed area, the presence of
consideration alone does not require reversal.
10
No. 77105-1-1/11
In Washburn,four neighbors shared the costs to construct a road through
their properties to obtain access to a beach. 9 Wash. App. at 170. The trial court
granted a prescriptive easement, finding that the original lot owners orally agreed
to put in the road to provide beach access, shared in the cost of the road, and
after the road was put in, used the road as a "'matter of right." Id. at 171-72
(emphasis omitted). On appeal, the court explained that the "important question
is whether the landowner permitted the use as a mere revocable license or
whether an oral grant of a permanent right to use the property was intended." Id.
at 172. It held that, based on the testimony presented,"the original owners
agreed upon and jointly constructed a roadway that was to benefit and burden
each other's land. They were each to use the road as a matter of right.
Consideration was established." Id. at 173.
In Lee, a group of neighbors equally divided the cost of building a
community dock that was, in part, on property owned by William Fogleman. Lee,
88 Wash. App. at 179. Jon Lozier later purchased the property from Fogleman and
began restricting community access to the portion of the dock on his property.
Id. at 179-80. The neighbors sued, and at trial, one testified that during a
homeowners' association meeting, Fogleman promised to write a "letter" that
would appear on the title of his property, granting an easement for the neighbors
to use the dock. Id. at 180. Another nieghbor testified that when he asked
Fogleman whether he had recorded the easement, Fogleman stated he had
"taken care of" it "a long time ago." Id. at 181. The trial court found that the
elements of a prescriptive easement were met. Id. On appeal, the court held
11
No. 77105-1-1/12
that "Fogleman's promise of filing a 'letter' against his title indicated an intent to
grant a permanent, irrevocable right to the neighbors to use the dock." Id. at 183.
Additionally, citing Washburn, the court noted that the fact that the neighbors
contributed to the cost of the dock also indicated that they were operating under
a permanent right to use it. Id. at 184.,
Here, unlike in Lee or Washburn, there is no evidence that McClinton
agreed to grant a permanent right to the Workmans to use the disputed area.
The fact that the Workmans shared the cost to construct and maintain the patio,
in and of itself, is not evidence that a permanent agreement existed. In the
absence of evidence indicating that a Permanent right was granted, there is no
genuine issue of material fact.
Joseph relies on McClinton's second declaration, filed after the motion for
summary judgment was granted, to argue that a genuine issue of material fact
existed whether the agreement was intended to be permanent. But, the trial
court granted the Klinkenbergs' motion to strike this declaration because the
testimony was not newly discovered evidence.2 Although Joseph appealed the
order denying his motion for reconsideration, he did not assign error to the
court's decision to strike this declaration nor did he argue that the trial court
abused its discretion in striking it. "Appellate courts will only review a claimed
2 The court also noted that the new testimony was inadmissible because
without personal knowledge, it speculates as to the motivations and desires of
Marv. Furthermore, the court noted MCClinton's testimony that there was an
"agreement" between McClinton and Mary that contradicted McClinton's
deposition testimony that "he did not have any sort of formal agreement with the
Workmans regarding the use of the (so-called)joint area." CP at 150.
.12
No. 77105-1-1/13
error that is included in an assignment of error or clearly disclosed in the
associated issue pertaining thereto and is supported by argument and citations to
legal authority." Vern Sims Ford, Inc. v. Haqel, 42 Wash. App. 675, 683, 713 P.2d
736(1986)(citing RAP 10.3(a)(5); 10.3(g); Bender v. Seattle, 99 Wash. 2d 582,
599,664 P.2d 492(1983); Lassila v. Wenatchee, 89 Wash. 2d 804, 809, 576 P.2d
54 (1978)). Because Joseph did not challenge the trial court's decision to strike
the declaration, we will not consider it On appea1.3
Joseph also argues that summary judgment was not proper because his
family's use of the property was "joint," not "permissive." This distinction, based
on McClinton's testimony, does not resolve the key issue: whether that use was
intended to be permanent or temporal-Y. Because Joseph has not presented
evidence that the agreement was permanent, this argument fails.
In his reply brief, Joseph arguest that the Workmans used the term
"permission" in their deposition testimony because they did not understand the
legal implication of that term. Even so, it is likely that the Workmans understood
the difference between a permanent right and a temporary right. None of the
testimony cited by Joseph raises a genuine issue of material fact that the parties
understood the agreement for joint use to be permanent.
I
For the first time on appeal, Joseph argues that he did assert a claim of
right in accordance with Gamboa by sending two letters to the Klinkenbergs in
2015 asking them to remove their large planter from the disputed area. But,
3 Because we do not consider this declaration on appeal, we deny the
Klinkenbergs' motion to strike references to it in Joseph's appellate briefing.
13
No. 77105-1-1/14
because this argument was not raised below, we do not consider it on appeal.
RAP 2.5(a)("The appellate court may refuse to review any claim of error which
was not raised in the trial court.").
Finally, Joseph argues that the other elements of a prescriptive easement
were met. But because he cannot show that there is a genuine issue of material
fact as to the adverse use element, it is immaterial whether he presented
evidence satisfying the other elements:
Attorney Fees at the Trial Court
Joseph argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the
Klinkenbergs $131,749 in attorney fees. We disagree.
"The general rule in Washington is that attorney fees will not be awarded
for costs of litigation unless authorized by contract, statute, or recognized ground
of equity." Durland v. San Juan County, 182 Wash. 2d 55, 76, 340 P.3d 191 (2014).
Whether a trial court is authorized to award attorney fees is a question of law,
which we review de novo. Gander v. Yeager, 167 Wash. App. 638, 646, 282 P.3d
1100 (2012). When attorney fees are authorized, we will uphold an attorney fee
award unless we find the trial court manifestly abused its discretion. Chuonq Van
Pham v. Seattle City Light, 159 Wash. 2d 527, 538, 151 P.3d 976(2007). The trial
court abuses its discretion when its exercise of discretion is manifestly
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. King County, 188
Wash. 2d at 632. The Supreme Court has held that the use of lodestar
methodology is proper in the determination of a reasonable fee. Mahler v.
Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398,434, 957 P.2d 632, 966 P.2d 305 (1998).
14
No. 77105-1-1/15
RCW 7.28.083(3) provides:
The prevailing party in an action asserting title to real property by
adverse possession may request the court to award costs and
reasonable attorneys'fees. The court may award all or a portion of
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if, after
considering all the facts, the court determines such an award is
equitable and just.
The statute uses the term "adverse possession," and this case involves both
adverse possession and prescriptive easements. Because these doctrines "are
often treated as equivalent[s]" and the elements required to establish adverse
possession and prescriptive easements are the same, this statute allows
recovery for fees incurred on prescriptive easement claims. Kunkel v. Fisher,
106 Wash. App. 599, 602-03, 23.P.3d 1128 (2001); accord 17 WILLIAM B. STOEBUCK
1
& JOHN W.WEAVER, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: REAL ESTATE: PROPERTY LAW § 2.7,
at 99(2d ed. 2004).
Here, the trial court entered thorough findings of facts and conclusions of
law regarding the Klinkenbergs' motion for attorney fees and expenses. It found
that under RCW 7.28.083(3), the Klinkenbergs, as prevailing parties, were
eligible for attorney fees on the adverse possession claim and its related legal
theories that were dismissed in the first order on summary judgment. The trial
court also found that they were entitled, to fees for the easement claims that were
dismissed in the second order on summary judgment because they were also the
1
prevailing party on those claims. The court then applied the lodestar method for
calculating attorney fees. First, it determined whether the hourly rates of each
attorney and paralegal were reasonable. Some of the rates charged exceeded
$400 per hour, and the court adjusted those down to $350,finding that rate to be
15
No. 77105-1-1/16
justified in the locality,. given the attorneys' experience. It then reviewed a
breakdown of the hours spent per attorney, per category and included that
breakdown in its findings. Although the number of hours charged was significant,
the trial court found that several reasons justified the additional time, including
the number of depositions needed; the time required to respond to Joseph's
discovery requests; the fact that Joseph moved to amend his complaint shortly
before the first summary judgment motion so that a second separate motion for
summary judgment was necessary; and the fact that the Klinkenbergs had to
respond to Joseph's motions for reconsideration on both summary judgment
orders. The trial court also found that Joseph failed to "identify a single billing
entry .. . as excessive" or "argue that the number of hours expended in any
particular category of work was unreasonable." CP at 1127. The court did delete
claims for time spent unsuccessfully opposing Joseph's motion to amend his
complaint (totaling $7,003), and it deducted the overall award by five percent "in
light of the fact that[Joseph] prevailed on the minor issue of adverse possession
of the small area occupied by the railroad tie planter box," which it found
encompassed 22 feet.of the over 310 foot boundary. CP at 1125, 1129. In total,
the trial court awarded $118,481 in fees expended on the litigation and $13,268
in fees for the fee petition, for a total of $131,749. CP at 1129, 1132.
Although the total amount of fees awarded is high, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion. The trial court properly calculated the lodestar, and its
decision was based on carefully reasoned findings and included a substantial
amount of detail.
16
No. 77105-1-1/17
Joseph argues that the award is excessive in comparison to the assessed
value of the property of $428,503. In doing so, he relies on Scott Fetzer Co. v.
Weeks, 122 Wash. 2d 141, 859 P.2d 1210(1993), where the Supreme Court held
that an attorney fee award was unreasonable when "a total of 481.89 hours—the
equivalent of almost 3 months of uninterrupted legal work by one attorney—was
awarded, with no examination of the actual reasonableness of these hours." Id.
at 152. But here, unlike Scott Fetzer, the trial court engaged in a very careful
and well documented examination of the reasonableness of the hours claimed.
Additionally, where Scott Fetzer involved "an uncomplicated dispute over 120
vacuum cleaners worth less than $20,000," this case involved six claims to
waterfront property valued at more than $400,000 where the use at issue
occurred over a period of more than 20 years. Id. at 156. The trial court found
that had Joseph prevailed, "the Klinkenbergs would have lost seven feet of their
fifty feet of water frontage, a substantial loss of valuable property." CP at 1120.
Scott Fetzer is not controlling.
Joseph also argues that the trial court should have capped all attorney
fees at a rate of $255 per hour, the rate as his expert testified was reasonable for
the locality. In its findings, the trial court explained that, based on Brown v. State
Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 66 Wash. App. 273, 831 P.2d 1122(1992), it could
"consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper
fees, and...form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of
testimony of witnesses as to value." CP at 1114 (quoting Brown,66 Wn. App. at
283). The trial court was well within its discretion to find that $350 per hour was
17
No. 77105-1-1/18
justified in the locality for attorneys with the legal knowledge, education, and
experience of the Klinkenbergs' attorneys.
Finally, Joseph argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding
the Klinkenbergs attorney fees for defending the two easement claims on
summary judgment because the trial court previously advised the parties that it
believed Gamboa would be controlling on those claims. Regardless of whether
the Klinkenbergs' attorneys knew what case would likely be controlling, they still
had to spend time to draft and defend the motion for summary judgment. The
trial court specifically found that "the time spent by defense counsel preparing
and arguing the second summary judgment pleadings was reasonable." CP at
1126. Furthermore, the trial court explained that it did direct the parties to
Gamboa during the first summary judgment hearing and Joseph "should have
been on notice of the distinct possibility [he] may not prevail on the easement
claims." CP at 1126. Although Joseph argues that the hours spent were not
reasonable he does not take issue with any specific billing entry. Joseph has not
demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the amount of
time spent on the second summary judgment motion was reasonable.
Attorney Fees on Appeal
The Klinkenbergs request attorney fees on appeal under RAP 18.1 and
RCW 7.28.083(3). Attorney fees may be awarded at the appellate level only
when authorized by a contract, a statute, or a recognized ground of equity.
Labriola v. Pollard Gm., Inc., 152 Wash. 2d 828, 839, 100 P.3d 791 (2004). As
described above, RCW 7.28.083(3) provides such a basis. Because the
:18
No. 77105-1-1/19
Klinkenbergs are the prevailing party on appeal, we grant the Klinkenbergs their
reasonable appellate attorney fees, subject to their compliance with RAP 18.1.
In conclusion, we affirm the dismissal of the prescriptive easement claims
on summary judgment, affirm the trial court's award of attorney fees to the
Klinkenbergs, and grant the Klinkenbergs their request for attorney fees on
appeal.
WE CONCUR:
19