[WSBARP] Cause of action and measure of damages for intentional interference with pipe easement

Mon May 11 13:25:57 PDT 2020

I agree with Michael Brandt’s analysis. Easements are real property rights and an interference with that right is compensable with damages and  injunctions. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2020, at 1:00 PM, Michael Brandt <mbrandt at brandtlawgroup.com> wrote:

The cause of action is interference with easement.  You could also throw in a nuisance and/or trespass claim, but it all related to the impact on the easement rights.  The damage calculation is correct.  You might also seek the attorneys’ fees available in the trespass statute.

Michael D. Brandt
BRANDT LAW GROUP
1200 - 5th Avenue, Suite 1950
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.441.5739
206.299.9115 (fax)
www.brandtlawgroup.com<http://www.brandtlawgroup.com/>

<image001.jpg>

PLEASE NOTE: In response to the current situation involving the coronavirus, Brandt Law Group employees are working remotely.  Because of this, our response may be delayed.  During this time, please do not rely upon mail or messenger delivery; please use electronic communications.  We ask for your patience, cooperation, and understanding during this very unusual time.

The information contained in this e-mail and in any attached document(s) is CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. The e-mail (and attached document(s)) is intended for use by the person(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of such e-mail and/or document(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail and/or any attached document(s) in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (206) 441-5739.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:14 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Cause of action and measure of damages for intentional interference with pipe easement

Client has an express easement for water line over neighbor's property, and the neighbor intentionally prevents its use by destroying the pipe. Client elects to just relocate the pipe to avoid dealing with the neighbor. The cost to relocate is likely lower than cost of litigation, not to mention the bonus avoidance of future bad behavior which is highly likely given the neighbor's volatility and ongoing pattern of harassment over several years.

Can the client sue the neighbor for damages for interference with the express easement, with measure of damages being the cost to relocate the pipe? If so, what's the cause of action? Does quiet title still work for a damages-only claim in this scenario? The "damages" statutes in Ch. 7.28 RCW appear to contemplate mainly a case where plaintiff wins adverse possession but defendant has constructed improvements on the property now possessed by plaintiff. Obviously that's not the case here.

Tortious destruction of property works for damage to the existing pipe, but cost to repair would likely be different, and lower than, cost to relocate. (The client's problem is that having the work done on the neighbor's property would be an ordeal, given the neighbor's behavior.) I'd love to get treble damages under RCW 4.24.630 but I think there is case law indicating that the statute doesn't apply when the damage is done on one's own property, even when it's damage to property owned by a neighbor and lawfully present due to an easement. Am I wrong I hope?

But aside from the destruction of property, this is also interference with the legal right under the easement, basically rendering it impossible as a practical matter for client to peaceably use the easement. What damages can compensate for that? Could the cost to relocate the pipe to a different location, be argued as the measure of the value of the easement itself?

Is there a potential problem with client "voluntarily" deciding to relocate the pipe? Obviously it could be construed as abandoning the easement, but does it also potentially bar a remedy for interference with the easement?

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.

MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200511/de4b7193/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13933 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200511/de4b7193/image001.jpg>