FILED APRIL 11, 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
RICARDO G. GARCIA and LUZ C. ) GARCIA, husband and wife, ) No. 34189-5-111 ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION TED HENLEY and AUDEAN HENLEY, ) individually and the marital community of ) them composed, ) ) Respondent. )
KORSMO, J. -The trial court denied the request of Luz and Ricardo Garcia to
eject a fence their neighbors, Audean and Ted Henley, had built six inches on to the
Garcia property. Dissatisfied with the $500 damage award, the Garcias appeal to this
court. Concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion in designing a remedy,
we affirm.
FACTS
With each succeeding repair or replacement of the fence between their respective
properties, the Henleys moved it further and further on to the· Garcia property. A chain
link fence, in place long before either the Henleys (1985) or the Garcias (1991) purchased No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley
their properties, was believed to mark the boundary line. The trial court ultimately found
that it, too, had always been located on the Garcia property.
The next significant intrusion onto the Garcia property came in 1997 when the
Henleys replaced the final 67 feet of the eastern end of the chain link fence with a
wooden fence supported by metal poles. This adjustment occurred while the Garcias
were out of the country. Upon their return, they protested the intrusion, but no legal
action was taken.
However, when the next revision to the fence line occurred in 2011, the Garcias
responded with the current action to eject the Henley fence and to recover damages for
trespass. The Henleys testified that they believed they were replacing the fence in the
same location it already stood. The trial court found that in replacing the eastern portion
of the fence in 2011, the new location intruded an additional six inches on to the property
over the final 67 feet, resulting in the Henleys encroaching on an additional 33.5 square
feet of Garcia property.
At the ensuing trial, the court found that the Garcias had established the elements
of their ejectment claim for the 2011 encroachment. The court also determined that the
most significant intrusions had occurred long before the 2011 action, resulting in the
Henleys gaining all land down to the fence line by adverse possession. Noting that the
Garcias otherwise were entitled to an injunction, the trial court recognized pursuant to
Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d 491, 238 P.3d 1117 (2010), that equitable principles
2 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley
sometimes dictated a different remedy. Believing that this case was an appropriate one to
consider an alternative remedy, the trial court decided that the fence should remain in its
current location and title to the land be granted to the Henleys. The court ordered them to
pay the Garcias $500 for the value of the additional 33.5 square feet taken by the 2011
rev1s10n.
The Henleys were also ordered to pay all taxes associated with the corrected
boundary lines, have survey markers installed, and both parties were directed to
cooperate in signing all forms and documents necessary to carry out a boundary line
adjustment.
After judgment was entered, the Garcias timely appealed to this court. A panel
considered the matter without argument.
ANALYSIS
The Garcias argue that the trial court did not properly consider the governing
equitable factors, resulting in a failure to enforce their property rights. Their argument
reads too much into the governing cases.
The decision to eject a trespasser is an equitable remedy. Arnold v. Melani, 75
Wn.2d 143, 152,449 P.2d 800 (1968). Similarly, the decision not to eject a trespasser is
also equitable in nature. Id. The goal of a court acting in equity is to do substantial
justice and end litigation. Carpenter v. Folkerts, 29 Wn. App. 73, 78, 627 P.2d 559
( 1981 ). A trial judge has broad discretionary powers to achieve those ends. In re
3 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley
Foreclosure ofLiens, 123 Wn.2d 197,204,867 P.2d 605 (1994). The judge's equitable
decision is therefore reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. Discretion is abused when it is
exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker,
79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
The governing cases are Arnold and Proctor. Arnold involved a situation where
the plaintiff's house and fence intruded two- to eight-feet on to their neighbors' property.
75 Wn.2d at 145-146. The defendants removed the fence and demanded that the
plaintiffs remove the house. Finding no adverse possession had occurred and that value
of the loss of use of the land to the plaintiffs was no more than $125, the trial court
declined to enjoin the encroachment or require removal of the home. Id. at 153-154. It
granted the defendants an easement for the encroaching portions of the house. Id. at 154.
The question presented was whether the trial court had the discretion to refuse to grant
the plaintiffs equitable relief. Id. After considering and rejecting other equitable theories
of relief, the court finally turned to the injunction issue.
Upon reviewing three of its older cases, the Arnold court noted that it was
particularly appropriate to withhold a mandatory injunction as oppressive when ( 1) the
encroacher did not act in bad faith or take a calculated risk to locate the encroaching
structure, (2) the damage to the landowner was slight and the benefit of removal equally
small, (3) there was ample remaining room for a suitable structure and no limitation was
4 No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley
imposed on the land's future use, (4) it was impractical to remove the structure as built,
and (5) there is an enormous disparity in resulting hardships. Id. at 152.
Ordinarily, even though it is extraordinary relief, a mandatory injunction will issue to compel the removal of an encroaching structure. However, it is not to be issued as a matter of course. We do not deny that a "sacred" right exists in a free society as to the protection of the concept of private property; we simply hold that when an equitable power of the court is invoked, to enforce a right, the court must grant equity in a meaningful manner, not blindly.
Id. The court then concluded that the trial judge had correctly declined to order the
removal of the home. Id. at 154.
Proctor revisited Arnold and provided a detailed history of encroachment actions
in Washington. Washington initially followed the "property rules" concept in
encroachment cases, an approach that gave the landowner an absolute right to eject
encroachers. 169 Wn.2d at 497. In time, however, Washington also recognized the
"liability rules" approach that granted damages in exchange for property rights. Id. at
497-499. Proctor noted that Arnold represented Washington's first attempt to reconcile
the two approaches. Id. at 499-500.
Proctor involved a house built one acre onto the plaintiffs rural property due to
joint confusion concerning the meaning of a boundary marker. Id. at 494. Eight years
later the plaintiff noted the intrusion while having the boundary lines clarified due to a
dispute with another neighbor. After negotiations to amend the boundary lines failed, the
plaintiff sued to eject the defendants from his land. Id. at 494-495. The trial court
5 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley
declined to eject the defendants, finding that the acre of land was worth $25,000 and that
moving the house elsewhere would cost $300,000. The court ordered the plaintiff to sell
the acre to the defendants for $25,000. Id. at 495. Both parties appealed, with the
plaintiff arguing that he was entitled to the injunction because the intrusion on to his
property was not "slight." Id. at 495-496.
Reviewing Arnold and its older decision in Bank v. Bufford, 90 Wash. 204, 155 P.
1068 ( 1916), the Proctor court stated that Arnold had "settled the point" that "liability
rules" were permissible. Id. at 499. Proctor read Arnold as based in the trial court's
general equity power and that the test was more than a balancing of equities. Instead, it
was "concerned with the reasoned use of injunctive relief only when an absolute property
rule is appropriate." Id. at 500. Reviewing the case in light of the Arnold factors, the
decision to deny an injunction was upheld. Id. at 501-504. Acknowledging that the acre-
sized encroachment was not slight, the Proctor majority nonetheless recognized the issue
"was not the key question before the trial court. The question was whether, in equity, it
would be fair and just to require the Huntingtons to remove their entire house" due to a
mutual "good-faith surveying mistake." Id. at 503. In the big picture, the trial court was
permitted to view the costs to the plaintiff as minimal, while the costs to the defendant
were great. Id. at 503-504. Recognizing the "evolution of property law," the court
affirmed the trial court. Id. at 504. The dissenters would have treated the Arnold test as
6 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley
an absolute threshold a party seeking to avoid ejectment must meet. Id. at 504-505
(Sanders, J ., dissenting).
With these considerations as background, it is time to consider the arguments
raised by the Garcias. They argue that the trial court failed to find the five Arnold factors
on the record and that the evidence did support implied findings for any of the factors.
We disagree with their contentions.
First, there is no support in the case law for requiring a trial court to enter Arnold I I factors on the record. It certainly did not happen in Arnold itself, and it is unclear on the I
face of the Proctor opinion whether or not the trial court made record findings on the II Arnold factors. Since neither party called Arnold or Proctor to the trial court's decision I in its trial briefing, they are not in a position to complain about lack of record findings on I the five factors. The Garcias mentioned Proctor in their rebuttal argument, claiming that II ! the Henleys took a calculated risk in moving the fence. The trial judge discussed the lI Proctor decision in its letter opinion, further indicating the court's awareness of the I
issues. On this record, we do not believe the trial judge can be faulted. If the parties had I considered Arnold important, they would have tried the case from that perspective. I II Nonetheless, the record evidence does support finding the presence of the Arnold !
factors. First, the Henleys did not necessarily take a calculated risk in moving the fence. II 'j i Mr. Henley testified that he thought he was putting up the replacement fence in the same l !
location. Second, the determination that the damage to the Garcias was slight is amply iI I f 7 ! I No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley
supported in the trial record. The court found that only a six inch encroachment occurred
over the final 67 feet. That small figure also easily satisfied the third Arnold
factor--there was still ample room on the property for other structures.
The fourth factor also could be found by the trial judge. This Arnold factor looks
at whether or not a structure can be moved "as built." Arnold, 75 Wn.2d at 152. A fence,
of course, cannot be moved "as built," but must be unassembled and moved. Semantic
points aside, however, it certainly would be possible to move the fence. This factor does
not weigh heavily in the calculus.
The final factor is whether there is an enormous disparity of the resulting
hardships. Although the adjective "enormous" likely does not apply here, the hardship
disparity favors the Henleys. Working only on weekends, Mr. Henley took a month to
replace the damaged section of fence. In contrast, the damages for the loss of the land I totaled only $500, and the Henleys would have the additional expenses of conforming the 1
legal description of the property to the actual fence line. In contrast, the Garcias would I I lose six inches of apparently unused property. II On balance, all of the factors favor the Henleys to varying degrees. The Garcias, I advancing arguments similar to the Proctor dissenters, essentially read the Arnold factors I ! as a significant limitation on a trial judge's equitable authority to refuse to enjoin
encroaching neighbors. However, the Proctor majority rejected that interpretation, II I reasoning that the Arnold factors were more of a focusing mechanism that had I I 8 I i I No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley
application only in those situations where a "property rules" approach might otherwise be
applicable. 169 Wn.2d at 500-501. Indeed, even the appellants in Proctor believed that
the Arnold factors did not justify injunctive relief in the situation where the encroachment
was slight. Id. at 502. The position the Garcias advance here is more rigid than that
proposed-and rejected-in Proctor. As in that case, the trial judge did not err in
refusing to enjoin the Henleys and eject the fence.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in applying a "liability rule" approach
instead of the "property rule" approach advocated by the Garcias. Moreover, the
resulting decision was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court's equitable decision
here took into account the entire changes in the boundary line rather than simply the
changes engendered by the 2011 replacement of the eastern edge of the fence. By the
time an action was finally filed following the 2011 repairs, the court was facing afait
accompli. The major variance between the property line and the fence line had been in
place for years, resulting in the Henleys (and their predecessors in interest) having
acquired title to that strip of land by adverse possession. The last major change to the
boundary occurred with the 1997 incursion that the Garcias did not challenge in court.
Title to that land, too, passed to the Henleys by adverse possession several years prior to
the 2011 action. Accordingly, the trial court understandably believed there was need to
adjust the boundaries to account for the land acquired by adverse possession.
9 No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley
On top of those changes, not formally recognized until the present case was
concluded, there was the additional six inches of land taken by the 2011 fence
replacement. That de minimis amount of land had no special economic significance to
either the Garcias or to the Henleys. Understandably, moving the fence back six inches
made little sense at this point. Instead, the trial court looked at the entire picture and
came up with a comprehensive solution designed to fix the situation once and for all.
The boundary would be legally adjusted, at the expense of the Henleys,, to recognize the
new property description, which the Henleys had to have marked by a surveyor rather
than by their measurably imprecise fencing practices. 1 The formal adjustment would
save the Garcias some tax assessments in the future and place those costs on the property
that gained from the adjustment. The Garcias would be paid a token sum for the loss of
the six inches.
Since the vast majority of the property taken by the Henleys (and their predecessors)
could no longer be recovered by the Garcias, the outcome was about as good as the Garcias
could hope. They would gain little or nothing from having the fence moved six inches
back, but they did stand to gain some relief in the future when the adjusted boundaries were
1 The Garcias ask this court to order the Henleys to formalize the boundary line adjustment. We believe the judgment already does so, although the pendency of this appeal might understandably prevent the parties from acting on it. Clerk's Papers at 78. If the Henleys fail to adjust the boundary, the Garcias are in a position to enforce the judgment. If the Henleys believe a formal adjustment is not contemplated by the ruling, they could seek clarification from the trial court.
10 No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley
officially recognized by the taxing authorities. The damages, minimal though they may be,
recognized the righteousness of their position. The boundary adjustment created certainty
for the future when the current owners eventually seek to sell their respective properties.
The result here was about as win-win as could happen given the circumstances
facing the trial court. The trial judge exercised his discretion on very tenable grounds and
did not abuse the significant discretion accord~d him.
The judgment is affirmed.
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.
I CONCUR:
11 No. 34189-5-111
FEARING, C.J. (dissenting in part) - This appeal tests the nature of appellate
review. The majority and I agree that an appellate court should defer to factual
evaluations of the trial court. Our disagreement lies in the steps a trial court must adopt
before a reviewing court defers to those evaluations and specifically whether written
findings relevant to the Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143,449 P.2d 800 (1968)
encroachment factors are required. Our trial court's findings of fact and memorandum
opinion do not address those factors. I would remand the case to the trial court for entry
of findings of fact and a further hearing in the event the court deems additional evidence
is needed to enter sufficient findings. To the extent that the majority affirms the trial
court's ruling without entry of additional findings, I dissent.
Ricardo and Luz Garcia sue neighbors Ted and Audean Henley because, in 2011,
the Henleys situated a fence further south on the Garcias' Tieton land. Earlier
replacements of the fence also invaded the Garcias' property. The trial court recognized
the encroachment, but refused to order the Henleys to return the fence to its pre-2011
location. The trial court instead granted the Garcias damages of $500 representing the
fair market value of the taken land. No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part)
The Washington Supreme Court has occasionally addressed the circumstances
under which a trial court may deny a landowner the remedy of ejectment when a
neighbor encroaches on the landowner's property with the assumption that, if the trial
court denies the remedy, the court will award damages for the private taking of property.
The high court's decision in Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d 491, 238 P.3d 1117
(2010) includes an excellent historical narrative of the high court's treatment of this
question beginning with early twentieth century decisions. Initially, Washington, under
the concept of the sacred standing of property rights, always granted the remedy of
ejectment for an encroachment. As time passed, the Washington high court, citing equity
and contemporary notions of justice, permitted trial courts to deny ejectment and award
money damages under limited circumstances. These later Supreme Court rulings
engendered strong dissents that lamented the eroding of property rights and complained
of unconstitutional takings of private property.
In 1968, our Evergreen State Supreme Court formulated five factors that a trial
court must find before denying an ejectment or injunctive relief for an encroachment.
Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143. The court held that a mandatory injunction can be
withheld as oppressive when:
(1) The encroacher did not simply take a calculated risk, act [in] bad faith, or negligently, willfully or indifferently locate the encroaching structure; (2) the damage to the landowner was slight and the benefit of removal equally small;
2 No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part)
(3) there was ample remaining room for a structure suitable for the area and no real limitation on the property's future use; (4) it is impractical to move the structure as built; and (5) there is an enormous disparity in resulting hardships.
Arnold v. Melani, 7 5 Wn.2d at 152. The high court reaffirmed utilization of these factors
in Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d 491 (2010). Since the high court listed the factors
in the conjunctive, presumably the trial court must find all five factors for the court to
deny ejectment.
The Washington Supreme Court, in Arnold v. Melani, added parameters to the
application of the five factors. A property owner still enjoys a sacred right to the
protection of private property, and this protection is essential to a free society. Arnold v.
Melani, 75 Wn.2d at 152. Therefore, a mandatory injunction will ordinarily be issued to
compel the removal ofan encroachment. Arnoldv. Melani, 75 Wn.2d at 152. Denial of
an injunction is for the exceptional case. Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d at 152. The
encroacher must prove the five elements by clear and convincing evidence. Arnold v.
Melani, 75 Wn.2d at 152.
Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d 491 (2010) does not detract from the important
constraints announced in Arnold v. Melani. Proctor reinforced the general rule as
requiring an injunction. Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d at 504. The dissent, without
disagreement from the majority, emphasized the need to find each of the five elements by
clear and convincing evidence. Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d at 505 (Sanders, J.,
dissenting).
3 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley ( dissenting in part)
The trial court in this appeal entered a conclusion of law that reads:
Although Plaintiffs typically would be entitled to an injunction, the Washington Supreme Court in Proctor v. Huntington, 169 [Wn].2d 491, 238 P.3d 1117 (2010) recognized in certain adverse possession [encroachment] cases that equitable principles may dictate a different result as to an appropriate remedy .... [T]he court concludes that the fence between the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' properties should remain in its current location, and that title to the Plaintiffs' property that is subject to ejectment should be granted to the Defendants.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 74-75. Nevertheless, the court entered no findings of fact that
addressed the five Arnold factors. The trial court wrote in its memorandum opinion:
Normally, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to an injunction, directing the Defendants to remove the fence and restore the property line as determined by the Court. However, in [Proctor v. Huntington,] 169 [Wn].2d 491, 238 P.3d 1117 (2010), the Supreme Court recognized in certain adverse possession [encroachment] cases, equitable principles might dictate a different result as to an appropriate remedy. I believe this case does warrant application of those equitable principles.
CP at 28. The memorandum opinion lacks a discussion of any facts supporting this
ruling. Both the conclusions of law and the memorandum opinion lack any mention of
the controlling Arnold factors so we cannot be certain that the trial court reviewed all of
the factors.
We do not know whether Ted and Audean Henley acted in good faith when
moving the fence line in 2011. Ricardo and Luz Garcia readily saw that the relocated
fence was further south when they returned from their trip. Ted and Audean Henley
could have also readily observed that they encroached on the Garcias' land when erecting
the new fence. The record shows no steps having been taken by the Henleys in 2011 to
4 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part)
ensure they did not move the location of the fence further south. When re-erecting the
fence twice earlier, the Henleys trespassed further on the Garcias' tract. One might
wonder why each time the Henleys reinstalled a fence the three mistaken locations
always benefited them.
The fence is the only object encroaching on Ricardo and Luz Garcia's land. Ted
and Audean Henley have already moved the fence at least thrice. The record contains no
evidence of any impracticality of returning the fence to its earlier 2011 location. The
record contains no evidence of the cost of moving the fence or a weighing of that cost
with the harm to Ricardo and Luz Garcia of the taking of their land.
The majority faults Ricardo and Luz Garcia for not discussing the Arnold factors
with the trial court before the court's ruling. In doing so, the majority blames the Garcias
for failing to respond to a claim about which they lacked notice. The Garcias wanted
ejectment, not damages. In their answer to the complaint and cross claim, Ted and
Audean Henley denied that the Garcias owned the disputed land. The Henleys' pleading
did not seek denial of an ejectment on the basis of the Arnold equity principles. In their
trial brief, Ted and Audean Henley argued that they owned the property by adverse
possession. They did not ask that the court deny ejectment under equity. The Henleys
did not raise the Arnold factors during closing argument. The Henleys never cited, for
the trial court, Arnold or Proctor v. Huntington. Therefore, the Garcias possessed no
reason and no purpose for mentioning or analyzing the Arnold factors for the trial court.
5 I i
No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part) I I I I If Ted and Audean Henley wanted equitable relief under Arnold, the Henleys should have I I
put the Garcias on notice and discussed the factors. Presumably the trial court I i determined on its own to follow Arnold v. Melani and Proctor v. Huntington. lI The majority emphasizes the area of the encroachment being 33.5 square feet. II I This small measure should be a factor considered by the trial court. Nevertheless, size ! i f does not control. I! The majority fails to note the continuing encroachments on Ricardo and Luz I' I I Garcia's real property by Ted and Audean Henley. The Henleys now know that each I
I time they replace the fence, they may encroach further on the Garcias' land and oblige " the Garcias to sue, with the end result that the Henleys receive more territory while the 1
Garcias receive damages exponentially lower than the cost of litigation. I To repeat a key rule of encroachment law, Ted and Audean Henley carried the I burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence all five elements emanating from t l Arnold v. Melani. Ordinarily the failure to enter specific findings as to material facts is I !
equivalent to a finding against the party who has the burden of proof. Pacesetter Real I f I'. Estate, Inc. v. Fasules, 53 Wn. App. 463, 475, 767 P.2d 961 (1989). Therefore, this court •
could reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for entry of an ejectment. I only ! advocate a remand for further findings. i The majority correctly observes that no decision expressly requires the trial court l l to enter findings of fact with regard to all Arnold factors. Nevertheless, the opposite is ' •l r I 'I i 6 I J ! f No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part)
also true. No decision expressly excuses a trial court from entering findings of fact.
Obviously the trial court, in Arnold v. Melani, entered no findings of fact relevant to the
factors since the Supreme Court had yet to announce the factors. So Arnold cannot stand
for the proposition that the factors need not be expressed in findings. As conceded by the
majority, the record is not clear as to whether the trial court entered sufficient findings in
Proctor v. Huntington, 169 Wn.2d 491 (2010).
Washington law is replete with examples where the appellate court reverses and
remands for a further hearing if the trial court failed to consider all of the relevant factors
on the record. I attach an appendix that nonexhaustively lists decisions demanding a
review of all factors on the record.
Ideally, trial courts will enter findings of fact on each factor. In re Marriage of
Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 895, 93 P.3d 124 (2004). Findings of fact play a pivotal role
upon review. The purpose of findings on ultimate and decisive issues is to enable an
appellate court to intelligently review relevant questions on appeal and, only when it
clearly appears what questions were decided by the trial court and the manner in which
they were decided, are the requirements met. Schoonover v. Carpet World, Inc., 91
Wn.2d 173, 177, 588 P.2d 729 (1978). Nevertheless, the trial court may be excused from
entering express findings of fact if a party presented substantial evidence on each factor
and the trial court's oral opinion and written findings of fact reflect that the court
considered each factor. In re Marriage of Croley, 91 Wn.2d 288, 290-93, 588 P.2d 738
7 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part)
(1978). Some decisions even entail the Court of Appeals reviewing the record on its own
to determine the satisfaction oflegal factors. State v. Avila, 78 Wn. App. 731, 735-36,
899 P.2d 11 (1995). Hopefully, the reviewing court's examination of the entire record to
find facts is a rare exception, because such review contravenes standards of appellate
review.
This reviewing court in this appeal should not independently review the entire
record to determine the satisfaction of the Arnold factors. The trial court entered no
findings of fact on any of the five required factors. The court's memorandum opinion
also does not address the factors. The record contains no testimony concerning the cost
to move the fence. The credibility of Ted and Audean Henley is key in determining
whether they acted in bad faith or good faith. This credibility should be weighed by the
trier of fact.
Another reason compels a remand for a further review. Our trial court's decision
fails to mention whether the court based its ruling on clear and convincing evidence. For
all we know, the trial court based its decision only on a preponderance of evidence. In In
re Custody ofA.L.D., 191 Wn. App. 474, 363 P.3d 604 (2015), we reversed a trial court's
decision awarding custody of a child, in part, because the trial court failed to note that it
applied the required clear and convincing evidentiary standard. The majority ignores the
burden imposed on Ted and Audean Henley.
An anomaly exists between Arnold v. Melani and Proctor v. Huntington. In the
8 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part)
former case, the trial court granted, and the Supreme Court affirmed the granting of, an
easement to the encroacher. In the latter decision, the trial court granted, and the
Supreme Court affirmed the granting of, fee title to the encroacher. Neither opinion
weighs the suitability of an easement rather than fee title or vice versa as part of the
remedy. I would grant an easement rather than fee title, since the encroacher fails to
prove adverse possession. In the event the encroacher abandons its use of the property,
the easement could revert or lapse for nonuse. Smith v. Gilbraith, 75 Ohio App. 3d 428,
599 N.E.2d 798, 802 (1991); Oregon Department a/Transportation v. Tolke, 36 Or. App.
751,586 P.2d 791, 795-96 (1978). A grant of fee title would not revert for nonuse alone.
I would vacate the trial court's decision and remand to the trial court for further
entry of findings of fact and, if needed, additional evidence.
9 No. 34189-5-III Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part) Appendix
APPENDIX
Competency of a child to testify. State v. Allen, 70 Wn.2d 690,692,424 P.2d
1021 (1967).
Admitting evidence of prior misconduct under ER 404(b ). State v. Asaeli, 150
Wn. App. 543, 576 n.34, 208 P.3d 1136 (2009).
Admissibility of convictions to impeach the accused under ER 609. State v.
Alexis, 95 Wn.2d 15, 19-20, 621 P.2d 1269 (1980); State v. Delker, 35 Wn. App. 346,
349, 666 P.2d 896 (1983); State v. Barringer, 32 Wn. App. 882, 885-86, 650 P.2d 1129
(1982).
Imposition of discovery sanctions. Foss Maritime Co. v. Brandewiede, 190 Wn.
App. 186, 196-97, 359 P.3d 905 (2015), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1012, 367 P.3d 1083
(2016).
Award of spousal maintenance under RCW 26.09.090. In re the Marriage of
Monkowski, 17 Wn. App. 816, 819, 565 P .2d 1210 (1977).
Division of property and liabilities in a marital dissolution proceeding under RCW
26.09.080. In re Marriage of Monaghan, 78 Wn. App. 918,920,899 P.2d 841 (1995).
Award of primary residential placement of children during marriage dissolution
proceeding under RCW 26.09.187. In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795, 801, 854
P.2d 629 (1993).
10 No. 34189-5-111 Garcia v. Henley (dissenting in part) Appendix
Relocation of a child's custodian under RCW 26.09.520. In re Marriage of
Horner, 151 Wn.2d at 892-93 (2004).
Trial continuances in conflict with speedy trial rules. State v. Williams, 85 Wn.2d
29, 32, 530 P.2d 225 (1975); State v. Freeman, 38 Wn. App. 665, 667-68, 687 P.2d 858
(1984).
Departure from standard range sentence under Sentencing Reform Act of 1981,
chapter 9.94A RCW. State v. Cardenas, 129 Wn.2d 1, 5-6, 914 P.2d 57 (1996).
Review of Ishikawa or Bone-Club factors before closing courtroom to public.
State v. Rainey, 180 Wn. App. 830, 836, 327 P.3d 56 (2014); State v. White, 152 Wn.
App. 173, 180-81, 215 P.3d251 (2009).
Applying the most significant relationship test for a choice of law determination.
Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 171 Wn.2d 726, 735-36 n.6, 254 P.3d 818- (2011).