Michael L. Darland, et ux v. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District

FILED
APRIL 4, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
MICHAEL C. DARLAND and MYRNA )
DARLAND, husband and wife, et al, ) No. 34081-3-111
)
Appellants, )
)
V. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SNOQUALMIE PASS UTILITY )
DISTRICT, a Washington municipal )
corporation, )
)
Respondent. )
FEARING, CJ. - Landowners Michael and Myrna Darland sue a water-sewer
district, Snoqualmie Pass Utility District, claiming the utility district breached a contract
to provide water and sewer services or, in the alternative, seeking a refund of special
assessments levied on the Darlands' predecessors in title. The trial court, on summary
judgment, granted the Darlands partial relief. From an adverse second summary
judgment ruling, the Darlands appeal. We affirm the trial court's summary judgment
rulings and remand for possible further proceedings.
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
FACTS
This lawsuit concerns assessments for water and sewer services on a tract of land
and extension of water and sewer utilities to the land. The tract of land comprises four
separate, but contiguous, tax parcels and consists of 76.8 acres of unimproved real
property. The property sits east of Snoqualmie Pass in Upper Kittitas County, lies near
and north of Interstate 90, and encompasses, in part, Gold Creek. Plaintiffs Michael and
Myrna Darland are current owners of the tract of land who wish to develop the land for
residences. Defendant Snoqualmie Pass Utility District, the local water-sewer district,
assessed the property for water and sewer services.
Our lengthy and intricate facts begin in the 1970s. On August 3, 1977, Count
Michael Graf Von Holnstein purchased the 76.8 acres from Boise Cascade Home & Land
Corporation. Washington law then distinguished between water districts and sewer
districts. A 1996 legislative enactment reclassified each water district and each sewer
district into a sewer-water district. RCW 57.02.001. Snoqualmie Pass Utility District is
such a sewer-water district.
To construct public water system improvements, sewer-water districts may form
utility local improvement districts (ULIDs ). A sewer-water district forms the ULID to
finance improvements that benefit a limited number of properties. After forming the
ULID, the utility district sells revenue bonds to pay for the improvements, and the owners
of the properties within the ULID pay assessments for the purpose of retiring the revenue
2
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
bonds. RCW 57.16.050.
In 1978, Kittitas County approved a planned unit development on Michael Von
Holnstein's 76.8 acres. As a result of county approval, Kittitas County Sewer District
No. 1, a predecessor of Snoqualmie Pass Utility District, included the 76.8 acres in its
service area when finalizing the district's comprehensive plan. The Washington State
Department of Health, the State Department of Ecology, and Kittitas County endorsed the
comprehensive plan.
On May 19, 1982, the board of commissioners of Kittitas County Sewer District
No. 1 adopted resolution number 82-3, which approved an assessment for Utility Local
Improvement District No. 4. The resolution provided that
Each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shown on
the assessment roll is declared to be specially benefited by the proposed
improvement in at least the amount charged against the same.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 130. The resolution also declared:
[A ]11 future connections within Utility Local Improvement District
No. 4 will be subject to a connection charge or ready-to-serve fee of
$1,275.00 each, but the property owner will be entitled to a credit of one
such connection charge for each $1,275.00 of assessment against that
property up to the full amount of that assessment.
CP at 130. Resolution 82-3 does not identify the nature of the local improvement, but
plaintiffs Michael and Myrna Darland allege the improvement concerned sewer service.
ULID No. 4 assessed $48,917.25 against 72.47 acres of Michael Von Holnstein's
property. Apparently the ULID did not benefit all of Count Von Holnstein's 76.8 acres.
3
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
We assume that Kittitas County Sewer District No. 1 changed its name to
Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District of King and Kittitas Counties sometime between May
19, 1982, and July 25, 1986. On July 25, 1986, Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District
Superintendent Richard Kloss penned a letter to Snoqualmie Pass landowners, including
Michael Von Holnstein. The letter addressed a proposed water system and read, in part:
SUBJECT: Pass-wide Water System
The following is in response to several questions asked about the
proposed pass-wide water system:
1. Financing will be accomplished by the formation of a Utility
Local Improvement District (ULID). The bonds would be issued at
approximately 8 1/2 percent (today's rate) payable over a 15 year period.
The preliminary cost per acre is$ 1,425.00 and lots under 1 acre
would be$ 475.00 per lot. This method of payment allows all land over 1
acre to be guaranteed 3 residential equivalent hookups (1200 gpd). Lots
under 1 acre would be entitled to 1 residential equivalent hookup.
The monthly payment based on a current 8 1/2 percent interest rate
for 15 years would be $14.03 per month per acre, and $4.68 for lots under 1
acre.
CP at 26. Superintendent Kloss' letter did not identify the mentioned ULID by number,
but we assume the correspondence referred to ULID No. 7. Michael and Myrna Darland
challenge assessments for ULID Nos. 4 and 7.
On December 10, 1986, the Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District Board of
Commissioners convened a regular meeting. The board of commissioners discussed
water and sewer hookups. The minutes of the meeting read in part:
The Board of Commissioners stated that this does not include any
distribution system for water and that it only runs the water mains by the
property making water available to them, this is also true for sewer.
4
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
CP at 30. Later records also suggest not only a commitment to grant customers hookups,
but also a commitment by the utility district to extend sewer and water mains to utility
customers' respective properties, a promise contrary to utility industry customs.
On April 8, 1987, the Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District Board of Commissioners
convened a regular meeting, during which the board discussed ULID No. 7. Minutes of
the April 8 meeting include this entry:
Commissioner [Stan] DeBruler read the letter of protest from Mr.
Von Holstein aloud to the [b]oard members. Von Holstein's property is 76
acres, abuts Mt. Grandeur. Mr. Von Holstein wants out because he has no
legal access because of easements. Supt. Kloss explained to the [b ]oard
members the adjoining property owners and the neighboring easement
problems. Easement possibilities were discussed by the [b ]oard and it was
suggested that a response to Mr. Von Holstein be made as soon as possible.
CP at 173.
On June 24, 1987, the Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District held a public hearing on the
final assessment roll for ULID No. 7. At the beginning of the hearing, Erling Johnson
asked what constituted ULID No. 7. Sewer District President Norm Craven responded:
PRES. CRAVEN: ULID # 7 is the installation of a water trunk line
from the top of the mountain down along the highway to the Hyak area
across under the highway to the-what's the area?
SUPT. KLOSS: Yellowstone Trail.
PRES. CRAVEN: Yellowstone Trail. It will tie the whole mountain
together into one complete water system. The trunk line at the present time
-well 2 years ago-we installed a trunk line from the Alpental area from
the wells in Alpental and the storage tanks in Alpental to the summit right
outside this building. This ULID takes that trunk line from right outside
this building down the pass to the Hyak area to the Yellowstone Trail area.
5
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
It installs three 150,000 gallon storage tanks.
CP at 36-37.
During this June 24 public hearing, a representative of Michael Von Holnstein
read a letter from Von Holnstein that expressed dismay over assessments on his property
with no development potential. The letter claimed the property could not be developed
because it lacked a sixty-foot right of way for access as required by the county. After the
reading of the letter, the following dialogue transpired:
PRES.CRAVEN: Is there any other person that would like to
address the Board relative to their property?
JOHN HIGHT: I have a question. With a piece of property big
enough to split and divide into another lot, will I have to pay the $710 two
times?
PRES.CRAVEN: You will have to pay another $710.
SUPT. KLOSS: Property under one acre is entitled to one hookup
and for anything above that you have to pay a hookup fee-710 is
prepaying that hookup.
SEC. DEBRULER: The_se are guaranteed hookups. We are
guaranteeing you water. This ULID # 7 is bringing water in trunk line past
your property.
CP at 39.
On July 31, 1987, Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District Superintendent Richard Kloss
sent notice to all district customers that the district would proceed with ULID No. 7
construction. The notice further declared:
The District will only be responsible for the water mains and the line
from the main to the property line. The water service line is the
responsibility of the homeowner or business.
Prior to any work being done, please contact the District.
6
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the above address or
phone (206) 434-6600.
CP at 33.
In 1989, Louis Leclezio discussed, with Michael Von Holnstein, purchasing the
76.8 acres of land near Snoqualmie Pass. Leclezio expressed interest in developing the
property. To that end, Leclezio formed a joint venture investment group named Miller
Shingle Company.
At the time Louis Leclezio negotiated the purchase of the acreage, he knew that
the land sat within the Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District boundaries and that the property
was subject to ULID Nos. 4 and 7. Leclezio further knew that Michael Von Holnstein
had defaulted on the ULJD assessments and the assessments had accrued penalties and
interest. Finally, Leclezio knew that the sewer district had threatened to foreclose on the
land unless Count Von Holnstein paid amounts owed.
Before Miller Shingle Company purchased the 76.8 acres, Louis Leclezio viewed
the land and reviewed records at the Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District and at Kittitas
County. Leclezio met with the sewer district superintendent Richard Kloss. Leclezio
wanted to confirm the availability of water and sewer for the land and its potential for
rezoning to commercial use. Due to penalties and interest, the amount owed by Von
Holnstein to the district substantially exceeded the property purchase price, and so
Leclezio sought to measure the potential gain from payment of the assessments. Leclezio
7
!i
Ij
i
I, No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
1
claims that, based on discussions with representatives of Kittitas County and the
II Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District, he felt confident the county would rezone the land from
forest and range land to commercial use. We suspect that the approved planned unit
development conflicts with forest and range zoning and diverges from a proposed
I
commercial use zoning. Leclezio does not identify the representatives who spoke with
him or specify the comments uttered.
According to Louis Leclezio, during a meeting with Snoqualmie Pass Sewer
District Superintendent Kloss, Kloss showed Leclezio a hookup status ledger maintain~d
by the district. The ledger disclosed that the sewer district owed Michael Von
Holnstein's property two hundred and thirty water hookups and thirty-eight sewer
hookups. Kloss also represented to Leclezio that the district guaranteed the hookups to
the land. Finally, Kloss represented to Leclezio that the sewer district guaranteed
delivery of the water and sewer lines to the boundary of each tax parcel of property
within the district. Thus, Leclezio concluded that, upon payment of the assessments,
penalties, and interest accrued on Von Holnstein's land, the district would provide the
property a minimum of two hundred and thirty water hookups and thirty-eight sewer
hookups and the sewer district would, at its cost, run the sewer and water mains from the
district's then existing termini to at least the boundaries of the four tax parcels comprising
the property. According to Leclezio, the district's guarantees induced him to purchase
the 76.8 acres from Michael Von Holnstein and to pay all assessments, penalties, and
8
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
interest owed to the district on closing of the purchase.
Michael Von Holnstein transferred the 76.8 acres of land to Miller Shingle
Company on June 1, 1989. The company paid the purchase price to Von Holnstein and
$492,781.44 to the Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District for ULID Nos. 4 and 7 assessments,
interest, and penalties. On September 12, 1989, the Board of Kittitas County
Commissioners approved Leclezio' s request to rezone the property from forest and range
land to commercial land.
From 1991 to 2000, Snoqualmie Pass Sewer District Superintendent Richard
Kloss procured several quit claim transfers that granted the sewer district road and utility
access to Miller Shingle Company's 76.8 acres. We assume that these easements would
have permitted the laying of sewer and water lines from the sewer district's trunk lines to
the 76.8 acres. Nevertheless, the sewer district's board of commissioners knew not of the
transfers and never approved the transfers. The parties to this appeal proceed on the
assumption the easements were void.
We assume that at some date between 1989 and January 30, 1998, the Snoqualmie
Pass Sewer District changed its name to Snoqualmie Pass Utility District, the name of the
defendant in this suit. In January 1998, Louis Leclezio commenced preparations for the
marketing and sale of the property. He then sought confirmation from the Snoqualmie
Pass Utility District as to the number of water and sewer hookups available to the
property. In response to the inquiry, the utility district faxed a copy of a one page
9
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
document headlined "Hookup Status." CP at 145. The document continued to show the
acreage had two hundred and thirty unused water hookups and thirty-eight unused sewer
hookups.
On August 11, 1999, the board of commissioners of the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District convened. Meeting minutes from August 11 portend a water shortage within the
district. The minutes read, in part:
SYSTEM CONNECTION CHARGES
Supt. Kloss distributed copies of a draft resolution from Foster
Pepper & Shefelman to rescind pre-paid hookups as was discussed at our
last meeting. After a lengthy discussion the Board agreed to research this
matter further and see what other alternatives might be available. In the
meantime we need to put together a plan before any action can be taken.
Supt. Lenihan stated that our water rights issue is the biggest
problem. With our current water rights we cannot honor the water
hookups. He also reported that our wells are not reliable and the plan
should include for the cost to put in a new well and additional storage.
CP at 45.
In March 2001, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District adopted a temporary
moratorium on the issuance of new certificates of water availability. The utility district
acknowledged nearly exhausting its available water rights. We are unaware if the utility
district revoked the moratorium and of the current availability of water to customers
within the utility district.
In June 2001, Louis Leclezio received an offer from an unidentified purchaser to
purchase the 76.8 acres for $6 million subject to confirmation of available water and
10
f
'
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
sewer utilities. Thereafter Leclezio and Snoqualmie Pass Utility District exchanged a
series of letters, primarily written by attorneys, through which Leclezio sought to confirm
the right to water and sewer hookups and in which the utility district denied any
guarantee for hookups.
On June 2, 2001, attorney R. Drake Bozarth sent a letter on behalf of Louis
Leclezio and Miller Shingle Company to the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District. The letter
informed the utility district that a developer wished to acquire the property subject to the
district reconfirming in writing the total number of water and sewer hookups available.
On July 18, 2001, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District replied to Drake Bozarth's letter:
The District's current policies for property owners in the District
seeking water service are set forth in Resolution No. 2001-3, adopted by the
Board of Commissioners on March 14, 2001, and Resolution No. 2001-6,
adopted by the Board of Commissioners on April 25, 2001. Pursuant to
Resolution No. 2001-6, a waiting list for the allocation of remaining and
future water supply was established.
CP at 49.
On September 5, 2001, Drake Bozarth, on behalf of Louis Leclezio, advised the
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District that Leclezio prepaid for two hundred and thirty water
hookups and thirty-eight sewer hookups under ULID Nos. 4 and 7. Bozarth again
requested that the utility district verify in writing the availability of water and sewer
service to the 76.8 acres. On September 6, 2001, the utility district's attorney, Mark
Greenough, sent another letter to Bozarth. The letter read in part:
11
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
With respect to your client's claim that your client's payment of
ULID assessments is the equivalent of a system connection charge, there
appears to be some misunderstanding in distinguishing ULID assessments
and system connection charges. The District has authority to impose ULID
assessments under RCW 57.16.050. The District has separate authority to
impose system connection charges under RCW 57.08.005. In classifying
customers, the District may in its discretion consider capital contributions
made to this system including assessments. RCW 57.08.081.
It appears that at certain times in the past, the District has maintained
a policy of granting credits against system connection charges for ULID
assessments that have been paid. However, a credit against a system
connection charge is not the same as payment of the system connection
charge itself. Please note that any credit for ULID assessments against
future payment of system connection charges is at the discretion of the
Board of Commissioners of the District. RCW 57.08.081.
CP at 57-58.
On September 18, 2001, Drake Bozarth, on behalf of Louis Leclezio, notified the
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District by letter that its conduct and apparent rescission of its
obligations by reason of payment of the ULID assessments would cause a substantial
decrease in the market value of the 76.8 acres. On September 23, 2003, Daniel Mallove,
new counsel for the utility district, wrote to Brian Dorsey, new counsel for Louis
Leclezio:
Your August 6, 2003 letter also asked the District to confirm the
entitlement of the Leclezio/Darland property to a certain number of water
and sewer connections and the actual capacity of the District to meet what
you describe as the District's "obligation under those entitlements."
As you may be aware, the District wrote to R. Drake Bozarth, your
clients' previous counsel, on November 15, 2001 concerning the issues you
have raised. Please be advised that the District's position has not changed
since that letter was sent. Specifically, it is the District's position that your
clients do not have a guaranteed entitlement to any water and sewer
12
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
connections to their property. Rather, pursuant to District Resolution No.
87-11, your clients received a monetary credit to be applied to the system
connection charges to be paid by your clients as part of the District's
issuance of a Certificate of Water Availability for the subject property.
If your clients wish to obtain water or sewer service, they will need
to file an appropriate application for service pursuant to the requirements of
Resolution No. 2002-05 or any other applicable resolutions passed by the
District.
CP at 63. Thereafter, the proposed sale of the property failed due to the refusal of the
utility district to confirm the availability of water and sewer service to the property.
On June 12, 2003, Miller Shingle Company sold the 76.8 acres to Louis Leclezio,
Michael Darland, and Myrna Darland. We know nothing about the negotiations leading
to the sale. The deed specifically conveyed
water rights, utilities, including Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
water and sewer hook-ups, (believed, without warranty by grantor, to
consist of 230 water hook-ups and 38 sewer hook-ups).
CP at 115. Under a contract between Louis Leclezio, on the one hand, and Michael and
Myrna Darland, on the other hand, the Darlands would hold title to the entire property
and would convey twenty-six acres to Leclezio upon the satisfaction of certain
conditions, including proof that the property was entitled to receive two hundred and
thirty water hookups and thirty-eight sewer hookups. The Darlands intended a residential
development on the land and named the proposed development SnoCadia.
Currently the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District sewer main ends two thousand and
two hundred feet from the southern line of SnoCadia. The utility district's water main
13
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
ends four thousand and five hundred feet from the property. No easements permit lateral
lines to traverse between the two main lines and the 76.8 acres. Private landowners own
some of the land between the water and sewer mains, on the one hand, and the acreage,
on the other hand. The Washington State Department of Transportation or United States
Forest Service owns other intervening land.
At some unknown date, the Washington State Department of Transportation
granted to Michael and Myrna Darland's predecessors a twenty-foot access easement to
the property. Nevertheless, Kittitas County requires the Darlands to obtain two sixty-foot
access easements in order to develop the acreage for residences.
PROCEDURE
The case has a long thirteen year history. On July 14, 2004, Michael and Myrna
Darland and Louis Leclezio sued Snoqualmie Pass Utility District. The Darlands and
Leclezio requested a declaratory judgment, a writ of mandamus, and damages for inverse
condemnation, breach of contract, estoppel, and tortious interference. The Darlands and
Leclezio asked for an order establishing their right to the delivery of services to the
outside boundaries of the 76.8 acres in order to serve two hundred and thirty residential
units with water and thirty-eight residences with sewer. The Darlands and Leclezio also
sought an order compelling Snoqualmie Pass Utility District to lay lateral lines from its
main trunk lines to SnoCadia's outside borders. Later the Darlands would demand that
the utility district condemn intervening land to procure for the Darlands sixty-foot access
14
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
easements.
On August 30, 2004, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District answered Michael and
Myrna Darland's and Louis Leclezio's complaint and primarily denied the complaint's
allegations. Nevertheless, the utility district admitted that, through the formation of
ULID Nos. 4 and 7, it entered into a contract with the owners of property within those
two ULIDs. The contract conferred certain "special benefits" to those property owners.
The district raised the affirmative defenses of the statute of limitations, lack of
jurisdiction, waiver, estoppel, laches, lack of consideration, anticipatory repudiation, a
third party caused any damages, and failure to mitigate.
On January 25, 2005, Michael and Myrna Darland and Louis Leclezio moved for
partial summary judgment on the following questions:
Issue No. I: Did the District guarantee that the Property would
receive 230.07 ERU's of water service and 38.37 ERU's of sewer service
as a "special benefit" to the Property by assessing the Property for said
service, when all assessments have been paid in full?
Issue No. 2: Is a[n] ERU [equivalent residential units] defined for
purposes ofULID No. 7 as the equivalent of 400 gallons per day (gpd) of
water?
Issue No. 3: Is the District obligated, at its sole expense, to extend
the water and sewer mains to at least the boundary of each parcel
comprising the Property, with sufficient capacity to deliver at least 400
gallons per day (gpd) of water per hook-up?
CP at 89-90 (boldface omitted).
On March 8, 2005, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District cross-moved for summary
15
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
judgment. The utility district maintained that Michael and Myrna Darland and Louis
Leclezio failed to comply with the procedural requirement ofRCW 4.96.020 for a claim
against the district. In response, the Darlands and Leclezio contended the utility district
waived the affirmative defense under RCW 4.96.020 by failing to raise the defense in its
answer to the Darlands' and Leclezio's complaint. The Darlands and Leclezio also
argued that the utility district should be estopped from asserting the defense because it
waited until after the statute of limitations ran before raising a curable procedural defect,
the district failed to comply with the claim filing statute, and the district had actual notice
of the Darlands' and Leclezio's claims more than a year before they filed suit.
The trial court granted in part and denied in part Michael and Myrna Darlands'
and Louis Leclezio's summary judgment motion and denied the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District's motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the district's motion for
summary judgment under the claim filing statute because the district waived or was
estopped from asserting the defense of failure to comply with the claim filing statute.
The court next concluded that Michael and Myrna Darland and Louis Leclezio were
entitled to receive two hundred and thirty hookups of water service at four hundred
gallons per day per residence and thirty-eight hookups of sewer service as a special
benefit under ULID Nos. 4 and 7. The court denied summary judgment as to the question
of whether the utility district must, at its expense, extend the water and sewer mains to
the property boundaries. The court found competing facts as to whether the utility
16
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
district agreed to extend service lines to the 76.8 acres.
The trial court prepared an extensive memorandum decision. On May 16, 2005,
the court entered the following order on summary judgment:
1. Plaintiffs' approximately 76.8 acres of unimproved real property
at issue in this litigation is entitled to receive 230.07 ERUs (equivalent
residential units) of water service, at 400 gallons per day per ERU, as a
special benefit under ULID No. 7, said benefit having already been paid for
in full by plaintiffs and/or their predecessors-in-interest;
2. Plaintiffs' said property is also entitled to receive 38.37 ERUs
(equivalent residential units) of sewer service as a special benefit under
ULID No. 4, said benefit having already been paid for in full by plaintiffs
and/or their predecessors-in-interest; and
3. Unresolved issues of fact and law remain for further disposition
regarding the issue of whether defendant is obligated, at its sole expense, to
extend water and sewer mains to the property boundaries so that plaintiffs
can enjoy the special benefits for which they have already paid.
CP at 563-64.
In September 2005, the parties entered a memorandum of agreement tentatively
resolving the dispute. Under the agreement, each party assumed separate responsibilities
to seek necessary right-of-way permits and easements to create access to the 76.8 acres in
order to allow development of SnoCadia. The Snoqualmie Pass Utility District incurred
the primary responsibility of seeking utility related rights-of-way, easements, and
permits. The Darlands acquired the primary responsibility to obtain all access related
easements and permits, principally in the form of two sixty-foot wide access roads to the
property in order to comply with county requirements for development. The procurement
of easements was a condition to the Memorandum of Agreement becoming a binding
17
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
agreement. Paragraph 12 read, in part:
In the event the Parties are unable to secure such permits and
easements as provided for in paragraph 2 above on or before the expiration
of said period, or as may be extended by mutual agreement, this Agreement
shall become null and void unless otherwise waived by Plaintiffs. If this
Agreement shall become void, the Parties shall retain and otherwise reserve
all rights and remedies under that action currently pending in Kittitas
County Superior Court, Cause No. 04-2-00411-2 and Plaintiffs shall be
entitled to resume prosecution of the same upon ten ( 10) days written notice
to the District.
CP at 1100. On October 4, 2005, the parties entered a stipulation and order staying
litigation pending settlement.
At some unknown time, Snoqualmie Pass Utility District requested the
Washington State Department of Transportation to deed the utility district a utility
easement across the department's abandoned Sunset Highway near the 76.8 acres. In late
2006, the Department of Transportation informed the utility district that the department
would take no immediate action on the request pending the completion of environmental
studies relating to the department's Interstate 90 Snoqualmie Pass East Project. The
Department of Transportation advised the utility district that the department anticipated
completion of the environmental studies in the summer of 2007, at which time the
department would further consider the district's requests for an easement.
Probably during the time that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District contacted the
Department of Transportation for a utility easement, Michael and Myrna Darland
requested access and utility easements from the department in order to serve SnoCadia.
18
I
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
On November 16, 2006, the Department of Transportation, by letter and with best wishes
for the holiday season, denied the Darlands' request for an access easement because the
property lies in the Gold Creek Enhancement Area. The department planned to create the
Gold Creek Enhancement Area as a pioneering environmental mitigation project to create
passage for animals and fish. The department concluded its November 16 letter:
At this point it does not seem possible that the State will entertain
any additional access or utility requests at this location.
CP at 980.
On August 24, 2007, John Milne, new counsel for the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District, sent the Department of Transportation a request for the extension of a utility
easement over a portion of the Old Sunset Highway right-of-way to facilitate water and
sewer utility service to Michael and Myrna Darland's 76.8 acres. The August 24 letter
reminded the Department of Transportation of past comments by department
representatives that the department owns the Old Sunset Highway in fee simple, the
highway was surplus to the department's needs, the department would likely convey the
highway land to the Darlands for access to SnoCadia, and the department would deed a
utility easement to the utility district to service SnoCadia and other land. The letter
recognized a contractual obligation of the utility district to provide an extension of utility
services to the Darlands' land and the need for the extension of the utility easement to
fulfill this duty. Milne's letter claimed that the underground utilities would not impact
19
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
the environment and noted that the Darlands already owned a twenty-foot easement in the
area of the proposed utility easement extension.
On September 17, 2007, the Washington State Department of Transportation
replied to the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District's August 24 letter. The letter declined the
request to expand the existing twenty-foot access easement's width, but stated the
department would recognize a utility easement within the existing twenty-foot easement,
as long as the use of the easement accorded with the department's planned actions in the
Gold Creek area.
In October 2009, Michael Darland requested the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
pursue an eminent domain action against the State of Washington to obtain road access
for SnoCadia. The utility district advised that it would seek condemnation if necessary
for utility access, but not for road access. The utility district's counsel advised the district
that it lacked authority to condemn property for a road to SnoCadia. The district also
offered to allow, within certain liability limiting parameters, the Darlands to pursue an
eminent domain suit for road access on behalf of the district.
In 2010, the State Department of Transportation gave notice of its intent to transfer
to the United States Forest Service the property over which the Darlands desire an
easement. The record does not reflect an actual transfer.
On June 21, 2010, plaintiff Louis Leclezio filed a cross-claim against plaintiffs
Michael and Myrna Darland. Leclezio sought a declaration of rights between the parties
20
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
under the Leclezio-Darland agreement, wherein the Darlands agreed to reconvey twenty-
six acres to Leclezio upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. The Darlands filed an
answer to the cross-claim and several counterclaims against Leclezio. On October 11,
2011, the trial court ruled for the Darlands on their cross-claims and terminated any
obligation to convey the twenty-six acres. The trial court's order resolved all claims
between Leclezio and the Darlands.
On August 20, 2014, Michael and Myrna Darland filed their first amended
complaint for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, negligence, inverse condemnation, estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
In January 2015, the Darlands again moved for partial summary judgment. The Darlands
requested that the trial court compel the district to use its powers of eminent domain to
condemn two sixty-foot-wide access and utility easements over privately held properties
so that the Darlands' property could utilize the special benefits conferred by ULID Nos. 4
and 7.
The trial court denied Michael and Myrna Darland's second summary judgment
motion. On April 16, 2015, the trial court entered the following order:
( 1) With respect to the issue of road access to plaintiffs[ sic] property,
because defendant does not have the legal authority to exercise its powers of
eminent domain to condemn property for the purpose of providing road access to
plaintiffs' property, plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment against defendant as a
matter of law on that issue;
(2) With respect to the issue of extending utility service to plaintiffs [sic]
property, questions of fact exist as to (a) which party should pay for the costs of
21
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
any eminent domain proceeding which may be necessary to acquire the property
rights to extend utility service to plaintiff's [sic] property and (b) which party
should pay for the costs of installation of the water and sewer mains needed to
extend utility service to plaintiff's [sic] property; and
(3) Consequently, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
CP at 1106. In its letter memorandum explaining its decision, the trial court observed
that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District will not be required to provide access easements,
but will be required to provide utility easements. The court wrote:
The court denied the motion primarily due to the request for a 60' -
wide "access-easement." Defendant [Snoqualmie Pass Utility District] has
no legal ability to take private property for "access" but would of course be
required to use its power to create utility easements. Since plaintif:fls]
seek[] access as well as utilities, they seek too much. The court determines
as a matter of law that plaintiff is not entitled to an order requiring
defendant to provide "access easements."
As to the cost of bringing the utilities to the edge of the property,
Judge Cooper explained in 2005 that a question of fact remains regarding
whether defendant is required to, at its sole expense, extend water and
sewer mains to the property boundary so that plaintiffs can enjoy the
special benefits for which they have already paid. Accordingly, that
question remains in need of a trial. While it may ultimately be determined
after trial that defendant should pay for the legal costs of the eminent
domain proceeding and that plaintiffs should pay for the "dirt work"
(trenching and pipe costs), the court could also fashion some other sort of
remedy. In any event, it does at this point seem beyond dispute that
defendant shall have to, whether it wishes or not, exercise its power of
eminent domain to ensure that plaintiff has access to the sewer and water
benefits already paid for. "In order for a sewer to be susceptible of use to a
given parcel of land, there must be access from said land to said sewer
without passing through the property of other individuals." Memorandum
Decision, page 9 (quoting Towers v. Tacoma, 151 Wash. 577, 583 (1929)).
CP at 1104.
22
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
On July 8, 2015, Michael and Myrna Darland filed a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking to recover the monies paid to the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
under ULID Nos. 4 and 7 for water and sewer service. On October 22, 2015, the utility
district cross-moved for summary judgment on the Darlands' claim for the return of
money paid. On December 28, 2015, the trial court denied the Darlands' motion for
partial summary judgment and granted the district's motion for summary judgment. The
trial court thereby dismissed the action for reimbursement. In a memorandum decision,
the trial court explained:
Having exhausted their ability to obtain adequate access to this
property (and presumably develop it like originally envisioned), plaintiffs
resort to the only remedy they can presently conceive of: a money judgment
against defendant for the value paid of past assessments, plus interest. This
request is put forth with full knowledge that plaintiffs themselves never
paid one penny towards the assessments in question: those assessments
were paid for by the previous landowners. The overall condition of the
property was known, or should have been known, to plaintiff when it was
purchased. The price of the property when plaintiffs purchased it
necessarily included every facet of that property; and every tort, contract,
easement or other legal burden cognizable at law was transferred with the
property to the plaintiffs when they took that deed. There was then and is
now no cognizable claim for recoupment of previously paid ULID
assessments.
From the evidence presented it is clear that defendant has done
nothing to harm plaintiffs or their property, and the assessments defendants
previously collected from the previous landowners were legally collected
and legally expended, and nothing has been presented by plaintiff which
establishes a need to have a trial about anything. Defendant's motion
should be granted, plaintiffs' motion should be denied, and the case should
be dismissed entirely.
CP at 1510 (emphasis added). On December 28, 2015, the trial court entered an order
23
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
granting the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District's summary judgment motion, which order
reads, in part:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
(1) Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Seeking to Recover
All Monies Paid to District is DENIED; and this action is dismissed
without fees or costs to either party.
CP at 1507.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Before addressing the assignments of error asserted by the parties, we note an
anomaly regarding this appeal. In the May 16, 2005 summary judgment order, the trial
court ruled in favor of Michael and Myrna Darland that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District must provide two hundred thirty water hookups and thirty-eight sewer hookups to
the 76.8 acres. This summary judgment order has never expressly been revoked or
modified. The summary judgment order also reserved for a later hearing the question of
who should pay to extend the water and sewer lines from the respective mainline termini
to the border of SnoCadia. The parties did not further litigate this important question
before the trial court.
The trial court's December 28, 2015 order dismisses the "action." CP at 1507. By
that date, the 2005 trial judge had retired, and a new trial judge entertained the 2015
summary judgment motions. If we read the 2015 order literally, the relief granted to
Michael and Myrna Darland in 2005 became null. Neither party enlightens us as to its or
24
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
their position on whether the 2015 order voided the 2005 order. Neither party provides
legal analysis on the question of whether Snoqualmie Pass Utility District remains
obligated under the 2005 order to provide two hundred and thirty water hookups and
thirty-eight sewer hookups.
On appeal, Michael and Myrna Darland focus on forcing the Snoqualmie Pass
Utility District to condemn access easements to SnoCadia or to refund the special
assessments paid. The Darlands assign no express error to the language in the 2015
summary judgment order dismissing the action. Maybe the Darlands lack any interest in
the 2005 order unless a court orders the utility district to gamer access easements needed
by the Darlands to develop SnoCadia. We issue no ruling as to whether the 2015 order
dismissing the action abrogated the 2005 order obligating the utility district to provide
water and sewer hookups.
Issue 1: Is the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District obligated at its costs to extend the
existing water and sewer lines to Dar/ands' property under ULID Nos. 4 and 7?
Answer 1: We do not answer this question because the parties did not properly
brief the issue.
Michael and Myrna Darland assign error to the 2005 summary judgment order that
denied its summary judgment motion to the extent the motion sought a ruling compelling
the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District to lay, at the utility's cost, the utility lines between
the current mainline termini and SnoCadia's outer boundary. The trial court ruled
25
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
questions of fact precluded the grant of summary judgment on this claim.
Despite the assignment of error, the only comments from the Darlands, in the body
of their opening appeals brief regarding this assignment of error, read:
The District also represented that the water and sewer service was
guaranteed and would be delivered to the boundary of each property
parcel.
Accordingly, the District must fulfill its contractual obligation to
deliver the promised water and sewer service. And the only way it can do
so is by condemning the two 60' -wide access and utility easements needed
to allow the Property to receive the paid-for water and sewer service.
Br. of Appellant at 20 (citations and boldface omitted). This passage suggests that
Michael and Myrna Darland's primary concern is access easements to the property, not
the laying of utility lines by Snoqualmie Pass Utility District to SnoCadia. More
importantly, the Darlands fail to provide any analysis in their opening brief as to the
purported contractual guarantee of delivery of water and sewer service to the SnoCadia
boundary line. This court does not review errors alleged but not argued, briefed, or
supported with citation to authority. RAP 10.3(a)(6); Valente v. Bailey, 74 Wash. 2d 857,
858,447 P.2d 589 (1968); Meeks v. Meeks, 61 Wn.2d 697,698,379 P.2d 982 (1963);
Avellaneda v. State, 167 Wash. App. 474, 485 n.5, 273 P.3d 477 (2012).
In their reply brief, Michael and Myrna Darland provide analysis as to
representations uttered by the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District and why those
representations created an enforceable contract. The Darlands also forward legal
authority to support their contention that the utility district is bound by comments of its
26
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
superintendent, Richard Kloss. We decline to entertain this argument, however, because
the Darlands failed to submit their argument in their opening brief. Questions not argued
in appellant's principal brief cannot be considered on appeal, though they are argued in
respondent's brief and in appellant's reply brief. Royal Dairy Products Co. v. Spokane
Dairy Products Co., 129 Wash. 424, 427-28, 225 P. 412 (1924); Stickler v. Giles, 9
Wash. 147, 148, 37 P. 293 (1894); FPA Crescent Associates, LLC v. Jamie's LLC, 190
Wash. App. 666, 679, 360 P.3d 934 (2015). Argument and authority raised for the first
time in a reply brief comes too late. In re Marriage ofSacco, 114 Wash. 2d 1, 5, 784 P.2d
1266 (1990); King v. Rice, 146 Wash. App. 662, 673, 191 P.3d 946 (2008).
In its opening brief, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District writes:
Although Judge Cooper [the judge entering the 2005 order] denied
this motion without explanation on September 15, 2005 (CP at 1903-05),
Judge Sparks [the judge entering the 2015 order] appears to have granted
summary judgment to the District based on similar arguments in his Order
of December 28, 2015. To the extent [the] Darland[s] appeals the dismissal
of their claims on the basis that they are barred by RCW 57.16.090, the
District cross-appeals the order of Judge Cooper which dismissed the
District's similar motion in 2005.
Resp't's Br. at 2 n.1. Nevertheless, the utility district presents no argument challenging
the 2005 order at least to the extent the order imposes an obligation on it to provide the
hookups. As already stated, this court does not review errors alleged but not argued,
briefed, or supported with citation to authority. Valente v. Bailey, 74 Wash. 2d at 858
(1968); Meeks v. Meeks, 61 Wash. 2d at 698 (1963); Avellaneda v. State, 167 Wash. App. at
27
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
485 n.5 (2012). Assuming that the utility district considers a ruling that RCW 57.16.100
bars Michael and Myrna Darland from challenging the ULID assessments also constitutes
a ruling dismissing the Darlands' breach of contract claim, we disagree.
Issue 2: Did the trial court err when ruling that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District lacks legal authority to condemn private property for access and utility
easements benefitting the Dar/ands' property?
Answer 2: We do not address this issue because the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District lacks any obligation to condemn property for the purpose of access to the
Dar/ands' land.
The trial court ruled that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District lacks legal authority
to condemn property for the purpose of road access to a potential customer of the water-
sewer district. Michael and Myrna Darland assign legal error to this ruling. The
Darlands also, however, assign error to the trial court's purported ruling that the utility
district lacks authority to condemn property for utility easements. We find no such
second ruling by the trial court. Perhaps the Darlands combine the two forms of
easements in one assignment of error with the understanding that a utility easement may
lay within the access easement. Nevertheless, the easements are distinct. We only
address the ruling announced by the trial court.
Michael and Myrna Darland contend that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
holds a contractual obligation to provide water service to two hundred and thirty
28
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
residences and sewer service to thirty-eight residences to the SnoCadia property. The
trial court agreed with the Darlands' position that service must be made available, at least
at the termini of the respective mainlines and reserved for a factual hearing the question
of who extends the lines from the mainlines to the 76.8 acres border.
Michael and Myrna Darland further assert that, in order to satisfy its contractual
obligations to provide services, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District must exercise its
power of eminent domain to condemn two sixty-foot road easements from the utility
district mainline to the Darlands' four tax parcels of land because Kittitas County
requires these access easements in order for the Darlands to subdivide and develop their
land. According to the Darlands, without the access easements, the Darlands will not be
able to benefit from the water and sewer hookups promised by the utility district, and,
thus, to fulfill its obligations, the district must take steps to permit the Darlands to
subdivide the land.
The parties discuss at length whether a water-sewer district has authority to
condemn land for roads. Nevertheless, we need not address whether a water-sewer ·
district holds authority to condemn property for access to a utility customer's land,
because the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District never contracted to condemn or build roads
for SnoCadia. Michael and Myrna Darland present strong evidence that the utility district
promised to lay the water and sewer lines to the SnoCadia border. Nevertheless, the
Darlands impart no evidence that the utility district represented that it would provide
29
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
access easements for SnoCadia.
The Darlands strenuously argue that, because the utility district owes them a duty
to extend water and sewer services, the utility district must take additional steps to help
develop SnoCadia so that the Darlands may enjoy the services. Nevertheless, the
Darlands cite no authority for this argument. We doubt any authority exists for the
proposition that a utility's promise to supply water and sewer service includes a
commitment to also assure the property with road access. Such a rule could financially
burden small utilities. Regardless, this court does not review errors alleged but not
supported with citation to authority. RAP 10.3; Avellaneda v. State, 167 Wash. App. at 485
n.5 (2012).
Issue 3: Whether RCW 57.16.100(1) bars the Darlandsfrom seeking a refund of
assessments paid under ULID Nos. 4 and 7?
Answer 3: Yes.
In the event this court imposes no obligation on the Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District to condemn access to SnoCadia, the Darlands seek recovery of assessments paid
by their predecessors to the utility district for ULID Nos. 4 and 7. To that end, the
Darlands forward numerous arguments. The Snoqualmie Pass Utility District also asserts
some defenses. We address only one of those defenses we deem controlling. The utility
district contends that RCW 57.16.100(1) conclusively bars the Darlands' claim for a
refund of assessments because of an untimely challenge. We agree.
30
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
Water-sewer districts are special purpose local government bodies whose powers
and duties are generally codified in Title 57 RCW. RCW 57.08.005 establishes the
general powers of a water-sewer district. Those powers include the authority to compel
all landowners within its service area to connect to the district's sewer system and to
establish local improvement districts and levy assessments on property owners within the
local improvement district. RCW 57.08.005(9), (19).
The Washington Legislature invests local governments with the authority to defray
the cost of local improvements by specially assessing nearby properties benefited from
the improvements. Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of Kent, 155 Wash. 2d 225, 228, 119
P.3d 325 (2005); Philip A. Trautman, Assessments in Washington, 40 WASH. L. REV.
100, 100 ( 1965). Chapter 57 .16 RCW outlines the process for a water-sewer district to
create a utility local improvement district within its territory and impose special
assessments on property benefited by the local improvement in order to pay for the
improvement. The process echoes the creation of local improvement districts by other
governing bodies.
The sewer-water district's board of commissioners may initiate the formation of a
local improvement district by adopting a resolution that establishes the nature and
territorial extent of the proposed improvement, estimates the cost of the improvement,
states the proportionate amount of the cost that will be borne by the property within the
proposed improvement district, and fixes a date, time, and place for a public hearing on
31
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
the formation of the proposed improvement district. RCW 57.16.060. The district then
sends notice to landowners of the public hearing. RCW 57.16.060. At the public
hearing, the board of commissioners shall hear objections from landowners and may
narrow the boundary of the proposed improvement district. RCW 57.16.062. If the
commissioners find that the improvement district should be formed, the board adopts a
resolution approving the district. RCW 57.16.062. Upon formation of the utility local
improvement district, the board of commissioners next files with the county treasurer a
roll levying assessments in the amount to be paid by special assessment against the
property situated within the improvement district in proportion to the special benefits to
be derived by the property therein from the improvements. RCW 57.16.062.
Before approval of the special assessment roll, the water-sewer district must
publish notice in a newspaper and send notice to landowners fixing the time within which
protests must be filed with the utility district secretary against any assessments and fixing
a time when a hearing will be held by the commissioners on the protests. RCW
57 .16.070. At the hearing, the commissioners may correct, change, or modify the roll.
RCW 57.16.070. An objecting landowner may appeal the decision of the district board
of commissioners to the superior court within ten days after publication of a notice
confirming the assessment roll. RCW 57.16.090.
RCW 57.16.100(1) prohibits any collateral attack on an assessment. The statute
reads:
32
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
[T]he assessment roll and the confirmation thereof, shall be
conclusive in all things upon all parties, and cannot in any manner be
contested or questioned in any proceeding whatsoever by any person not
filing written objections to such roll in the manner and within the time
provided in this chapter.
We note that, at the time of adoption ofULID Nos. 4 and 7, Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District was only a sewer district, and, thus, another statute may have controlled
challenges to special assessments. We suspect, however, that the statute likely had a
similar time limit to special assessments challenges, and neither party forwards a
predecessor statute.
Washington courts have reviewed and applied RCW 57.16.100 or similar statutes
to the end of summarily rejecting a landowner's challenge to a ULID assessment when
the challenger failed to object before the utility district board of commissioners or failed
to timely file an appeal in court. King County v. Mercer Island Sewer District, 69 Wash. 2d
958 958-60, 421 P.2d 682 (1966); Wheeler v. Ronald Sewer District, 58 Wn.2d 444,447,
364 P.2d 30 (1961); In re Utility Local Improvement District No. 2, 5 Wash. App. 510, 513-
15, 488 P.2d 770 (1971). The court in Wheeler v. Ronald Sewer District mentioned the
policy considerations inherent in the statutes:
The procedure ... is summary in nature, and the cause is given
precedence over all civil causes pending except eminent domain
proceedings and actions of forcible entry and detainer. It was the evident
purpose of the legislature to provide a speedy and adequate remedy for any
person feeling aggrieved by the decision of the commission and to prevent
such a person from harassing the commission with lengthy litigation.
33
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
58 Wash. 2d at 446. In King County v. Mercer Island Sewer District, the court observed:
In it [Wheeler], this court simply gave the intended effect to a statute
which is clear and unambiguous in its terms and the constitutionality of
which has not been challenged. It does not deprive the property owner of a
right of judicial review of administrative acts, but simply provides and
requires that a certain procedure be followed in obtaining such a review.
The requirement is reasonable on its face and serves an obviously
legitimate purpose.
69 Wash. 2d at 960.
Michael and Myrna Darland seek to avoid application ofRCW 57.16.100 by
stating they do not challenge the validity of the UL IDs or the assessments levied
thereunder. The demand for a return of the assessments may be an argument alternative
to the Darlands' principal contention that the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District must
condemn access easements. Nevertheless, the Darlands want a refund of the assessments
on the basis of their land not being benefited by the ULIDs. The gist of their argument is
that the utility district erroneously assessed their land because the land receives no benefit
from the ULIDs.
Washington courts may entertain a suit alleging jurisdictional defects in a local
improvement district proceeding despite the challenger ignoring statutory deadlines.
Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of Kent, 155 Wash. 2d at 234-35 (2005). If a property
owner fails to appeal a ULID assessment in a timely manner as prescribed by statute, the
owner can attack the assessment collaterally only if there is a jurisdictional defect in the
ULID proceedings. Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City of Kent, 108 Wash. App. 1, 4-5, 32 P.3d
34
No. 34081-3-111
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
286 (2001 ); Patchell v. City of Puyallup, 3 7 Wash. App. 434, 441-42, 682 P .2d 913 (1984 ).
Case law limits jurisdictional defects to: ( 1) a violation of a constitutional right in the
assessment proceedings, (2) the improvement does not benefit the public, (3) the
improved property is not public property, and (4) the assessment roll includes property
not subject to assessment. Little Deli Marts, Inc. v. City ofKent, 108 Wash. App. at 5;
Patchell v. City of Puyallup, 37 Wash. App. at 442; Trautman, supra, 126-27 (1965).
Washington courts strictly construe such jurisdictional defects. Little Deli Marts, Inc. v.
City of Kent, 108 Wash. App. at 5.
A jurisdictional challenge seeks to invalidate the entire underlying ULID. Tiffany
Family Trust Corp. v. City ofKent, 155 Wash. 2d at 235-36 (2005). Challenges directed
toward the amount of a specific assessment or that the local government levied the
assessment without regard to benefits are not jurisdictional defects and must be brought
within the existing statutory framework. City ofLongview v. Longview Co., 21 Wash. 2d
248, 252, 150 P.2d 395 (1944). Michael and Myrna Darland do not seek to invalidate
ULID Nos. 4 and 7. They claim their property reaps no benefit from the ULIDs.
Regardless of whether the Darlands sue for equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel,
unjust enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, impossibility of
performance, rescission, or restitution, they still argue a missing profit to their property.
The Darlands characterize the imposition of a ten-day limitation on their challenge
as egregious because their predecessors could not have known that, within the ten-day
35
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
deadline, the Snoqualmie Pass Utility District never intended to fulfill its promise to
supply water and sewer service. We recognize the absurdity of requiring a legal
challenge to conduct before the conduct occurs. Nevertheless, the remedy for any breach
of a promise is not a refund of the assessment, but an order compelling the fulfillment of
the promise or an award of contract damages. Although the utility district uttered
comments years after the assessment that it might not provide services, the district now
remains willing for the Darlands to tie to the utility's lines. A 2005 court order affirmed
the utility district's obligation to supply water and sewer services.
We also note that the conditions that erect difficulties for SnoCadia to benefit from
the ULIDs were also present at the time of the ULID assessments. In 1982 and in 1987,
the 76.8 acres lacked sixty-foot access easements. The same distances between the
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District water mainline termini and the sewer mainline termini to
the 76.8 acres existed then as they remain today. Michael Von Holnstein complained
about those very conditions to the board of commissioners in 1982 and 1987. If Count
Von Holnstein determined that the problematic circumstances resulted in a lack of
benefits to the 76.8 acres, he had the right to file a lawsuit challenging the ULIDs within
ten days of the respective assessments for the ULIDs.
Because we affirm dismissal of Michael and Myrna Darland's request for
reimbursement of special assessments paid, we do not address Snoqualmie Pass Utility
District's contentions that the statute of limitations bars the claim and the Darlands lack
36
No. 34081-3-III
Darland v. Snoqualmie Pass Util. Dist.
standing to assert the claim.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's 2005 and 2015 summary judgment orders. We remand
to the trial court for what, if any, further proceedings are appropriate.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
F earir{g, C.
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, J.
37