[WSBARP] Shot in the Dark

Thu Jun 22 18:06:48 PDT 2017

Might be from another state, but I recall a case saying just because easement calls out 60' doesn't mean you get to use the 60'. Only get to use what is needed and court looked to what had been used over time as a guide.

THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT.
ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

[cid:image003.png at 01D253C0.261D5B10]
PO Box 173
Ridgefield WA 98642

Washington 360-953-4148/Oregon 503-208-5789
darrin at rdclasslegal.com<mailto:darrin at rdclasslegal.com>

This message and any files transmitted with it contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential, may be privileged, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or taking any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please advise the sender by e-mail reply, and delete it from your system.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:05 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Shot in the Dark

Agreed. The general proposition used to be that it is a 60-foot easement, and that is that, with limited exceptions. But the general proposition used to be that if you built a house over the line, you had to tear it down. Not so much, after Proctor v. Huntington, although that and following cases don't really give anyone a very good clue about what the result will be in a particular case.

I don't think you can narrow the easement road down to the minimum necessary for actual passage through the easement. I have that case now, and that servient owner will lose that argument. But that is why we are offering  to agree to something in between - something that works for the dominant owner just fine, but allows the servient owner a reasonable use of the easement that does not unreasonably interfere with the servient owner's use. The fact that the servient owner brings new depth and breadth to the term, "jerk," won't hurt our cause

Also, be sure to look very carefully at the language of the easement. Sometimes they have little kernels in them that can matter. Usually they are just copies of a form.

Rob

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
236 West Birch Street
Shelton, WA 98584
360 426-2999
www.hossandwilson-hoss.com<www.hossandwilsonhoss.com>
rob at hctc.com<mailto:rob at hctc.com>

This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed above) and immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments.  Thank you.

This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.  To the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have the right to seek advice of legal counsel.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rick Hoss
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 2:48 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Shot in the Dark

"In upholding the equitable remedy imposed by the trial court, we recognize the evolution of property law in Washington away from rigid adherence to an injunction rule and toward a more reasoned, flexible approach." Proctor v. Huntington, 169 P.2d. 491 (2010.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 2:33 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Shot in the Dark

As is typical in a rural county, written easement calls for 60 foot access easement but the actual crushed aggregate road is about thirty feet wide.  Client has a plant hedge about 25 feet from actual road with a mowed lawn abutting the actual road (that is, the lawn is in between the hedge and the actual road.  Now, dominant easement holder is driving on client's lawn by about three feet (but still part of the easement) and is threatening to "tear out" the hedge "because I have a right to and you can't stop me."  In fact, there are about 10 servient tenements he is doing this to.  He is a retired Department of Transportation employee so he says he knows his rights and the law.  Unfortunately,  Littlefair vs. Schulze, 169 WnApp. 659 (Div. 2, 2012), says, basically, he (dominant tenement) can do this.

Are there any cases or anything out there that says enough is enough, the road is already a flat, unobstructed, straight 30 feet wide road.  You don't need any more so stop bullying your neighbors just because you may have the right?  All parcels are at least 2.5 acres.  Any ideas other than going to the guy, hat in hand, and asking for mercy?

[cid:image003.jpg at 01D2EB82.5043C460]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170623/f3500a78/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7458 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170623/f3500a78/image003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 83753 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170623/f3500a78/image001.png>