FILED MAY 23, 2019 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
VIVIAN LOOMIS FAMILY, LLC, a ) No. 36200-1-III Washington limited liability company, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) JEFFREY BELL and PAULA BELL, ) husband and wife, and LARGENT ) RANCH, INC., a Washington corporation, ) ) Respondents. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Vivian Loomis Family, LLC (Loomis) appeals the
trial court’s orders denying its (1) request for a writ of restitution to restore possession of
buildings on its property, and (2) request for reconsideration. The trial court denied these
requests because it found that the buildings were ancillary to Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) land under 7 C.F.R. § 1410 (2015). Because the trial court’s finding is
not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse. No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
FACTS1
Loomis is the owner of the subject agricultural property situated in Franklin
County, Washington. Largent Ranch, Inc., was a long-term tenant of that property under
an oral farm lease. Jeffrey Bell is president of Largent Ranch, Inc.
In 2016 and 2017, Loomis provided multiple notices to Largent Ranch of its intent
to terminate the oral farm lease. In October 2017, Loomis began leasing the subject
property to Todd Van Hollenbeck, a neighboring farmer. Neither Bell nor Largent Ranch
have prevented the new tenant from occupying or farming the subject property. Largent
Ranch nevertheless continued to store equipment in buildings on the property.
In January 2018, Loomis brought an action for unlawful detainer under chapter
59.12 RCW. The complaint alleges that Bell and Largent Ranch are holdover tenants and
have failed to vacate the property. Bell and Largent Ranch eventually answered the
complaint. They asserted that the unlawful detainer was unnecessary given that they were
no longer in possession, except as to “a portion of the farm designated as CRP.” Clerk’s
Paper (CP) at 75. They also raised a counterclaim in which they asserted that Loomis
1 The only declaration in the record is from Vivian Loomis in support of Loomis’s motion for reconsideration. This is unsurprising given that the issues argued to the trial court were generally legal issues. Our statement of facts is generated from the agreed facts, as reflected in the pleadings. To the extent there is disagreement, we must rely on the sole declaration.
2 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
failed to provide proper notice of termination and requested damages. In addition, they
requested temporary relief. Specifically, they averred that they had “substantial trade
fixtures and personal property located on the farm . . . [that] do not interfere with the
farming by the new occupier . . . .” CP at 77. They requested “reasonable time to remove
[these items], particularly considering the fact that [Largent Ranch] had occupied the
entire property for 31 years, and no proper notice has been given applicable to said
property.” CP at 77.
On March 19, 2018, the trial court heard argument on Loomis’s motion for a writ
of restitution. At the hearing, the parties agreed that a writ of restitution could not be
issued to the extent the property was subject to the CRP contracts.
The parties made those contracts part of the record. The contracts—signed by
Loomis, Largent Ranch, and the United States Department of Agriculture—designate
specific portions of the property that are subject to various federal restrictions for several
years. In general, Loomis and Largent Ranch agreed to keep specific portions of the
property fallow in exchange for agreed compensation.
3 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
The objectives of the CRP are to cost-effectively reduce water and wind erosion, protect the Nation’s long-term capability to produce food and fiber, reduce sedimentation, improve water quality, create and enhance wildlife habitat, and other objectives including, as appropriate, addressing issues raised by State, regional, and national conservation initiatives and encouraging more permanent conservation practices, such as, but not limited to, tree planting.
7 C.F.R. § 1410.3(c).
The trial court requested supplemental briefing on whether the writ of restitution
could include the shop and buildings that still contained Largent Ranch’s property.
Loomis’s supplemental brief established that the shop and buildings were not physically
on the acreages that were subject to the CRP. Bell and Largent Ranch’s supplemental
brief asserted that “Jeffrey Bell intends to utilize the shop building . . . to operate [the
portion] . . . of the farm which he is obligated to service until the end of the [CRP]
contracts . . . .” CP at 105.
The trial court heard additional oral argument and later gave its oral ruling:
The question . . . is whether or not these buildings . . . are farm land within the meaning of [RCW 59.12.035] and, if so, . . . whether or not that would be a violation of the CRP— .... . . . land agreement, which clearly . . . federal law indicates that the state law cannot remove an individual from CRP land.
4 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
. . . [T]his court believes that to allow the plaintiffs to remove Mr. Bell from the . . . buildings, which appear to be both ancillary to the farm land and to the CRP land, and traditionally have been used as I understand it to service that land, would be essentially allowing the plaintiffs to remove Mr. Bell from the CRP land if not specifically at least constructively.
Report of Proceedings (Apr. 9, 2018) at 9-10. As a result of this finding, the trial court
denied Loomis’s request for a writ of restitution.
Loomis requested reconsideration. In support of its argument, Loomis included a
declaration from Vivian Loomis. According to Ms. Loomis, the buildings are not
necessary to service the CRP contracts. The trial court denied Loomis’s reconsideration
request, and Loomis timely appealed both orders.
ANALYSIS
Loomis first argues that “RCW 59.12.035 applies to the entirety of a lease for
agricultural lands, including ancillary agricultural buildings.” Br. of Appellant at 9. Bell
and Largent Ranch respond that the present action “does not have anything to do with
agricultural land.” Br. of Resp’ts at 6.
Whether the action involves agricultural land is irrelevant. Chapter 59.12 RCW
provides the procedure that landlords must follow to remove nonresidential tenants.
Neither Bell nor Largent Ranch claim to be a residential tenant. Loomis properly brought
5 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
an action under chapter 59.12 RCW to have Bell and Largent Ranch removed from its
nonresidential property.
Loomis next argues the trial court erred by finding that the shop and buildings
were ancillary or a subordinate part of the CRP contracts.
As the party challenging the finding, Loomis has the burden to show that the
finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Blackburn v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED MAY 23, 2019 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
VIVIAN LOOMIS FAMILY, LLC, a ) No. 36200-1-III Washington limited liability company, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) JEFFREY BELL and PAULA BELL, ) husband and wife, and LARGENT ) RANCH, INC., a Washington corporation, ) ) Respondents. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Vivian Loomis Family, LLC (Loomis) appeals the
trial court’s orders denying its (1) request for a writ of restitution to restore possession of
buildings on its property, and (2) request for reconsideration. The trial court denied these
requests because it found that the buildings were ancillary to Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) land under 7 C.F.R. § 1410 (2015). Because the trial court’s finding is
not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse. No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
FACTS1
Loomis is the owner of the subject agricultural property situated in Franklin
County, Washington. Largent Ranch, Inc., was a long-term tenant of that property under
an oral farm lease. Jeffrey Bell is president of Largent Ranch, Inc.
In 2016 and 2017, Loomis provided multiple notices to Largent Ranch of its intent
to terminate the oral farm lease. In October 2017, Loomis began leasing the subject
property to Todd Van Hollenbeck, a neighboring farmer. Neither Bell nor Largent Ranch
have prevented the new tenant from occupying or farming the subject property. Largent
Ranch nevertheless continued to store equipment in buildings on the property.
In January 2018, Loomis brought an action for unlawful detainer under chapter
59.12 RCW. The complaint alleges that Bell and Largent Ranch are holdover tenants and
have failed to vacate the property. Bell and Largent Ranch eventually answered the
complaint. They asserted that the unlawful detainer was unnecessary given that they were
no longer in possession, except as to “a portion of the farm designated as CRP.” Clerk’s
Paper (CP) at 75. They also raised a counterclaim in which they asserted that Loomis
1 The only declaration in the record is from Vivian Loomis in support of Loomis’s motion for reconsideration. This is unsurprising given that the issues argued to the trial court were generally legal issues. Our statement of facts is generated from the agreed facts, as reflected in the pleadings. To the extent there is disagreement, we must rely on the sole declaration.
2 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
failed to provide proper notice of termination and requested damages. In addition, they
requested temporary relief. Specifically, they averred that they had “substantial trade
fixtures and personal property located on the farm . . . [that] do not interfere with the
farming by the new occupier . . . .” CP at 77. They requested “reasonable time to remove
[these items], particularly considering the fact that [Largent Ranch] had occupied the
entire property for 31 years, and no proper notice has been given applicable to said
property.” CP at 77.
On March 19, 2018, the trial court heard argument on Loomis’s motion for a writ
of restitution. At the hearing, the parties agreed that a writ of restitution could not be
issued to the extent the property was subject to the CRP contracts.
The parties made those contracts part of the record. The contracts—signed by
Loomis, Largent Ranch, and the United States Department of Agriculture—designate
specific portions of the property that are subject to various federal restrictions for several
years. In general, Loomis and Largent Ranch agreed to keep specific portions of the
property fallow in exchange for agreed compensation.
3 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
The objectives of the CRP are to cost-effectively reduce water and wind erosion, protect the Nation’s long-term capability to produce food and fiber, reduce sedimentation, improve water quality, create and enhance wildlife habitat, and other objectives including, as appropriate, addressing issues raised by State, regional, and national conservation initiatives and encouraging more permanent conservation practices, such as, but not limited to, tree planting.
7 C.F.R. § 1410.3(c).
The trial court requested supplemental briefing on whether the writ of restitution
could include the shop and buildings that still contained Largent Ranch’s property.
Loomis’s supplemental brief established that the shop and buildings were not physically
on the acreages that were subject to the CRP. Bell and Largent Ranch’s supplemental
brief asserted that “Jeffrey Bell intends to utilize the shop building . . . to operate [the
portion] . . . of the farm which he is obligated to service until the end of the [CRP]
contracts . . . .” CP at 105.
The trial court heard additional oral argument and later gave its oral ruling:
The question . . . is whether or not these buildings . . . are farm land within the meaning of [RCW 59.12.035] and, if so, . . . whether or not that would be a violation of the CRP— .... . . . land agreement, which clearly . . . federal law indicates that the state law cannot remove an individual from CRP land.
4 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
. . . [T]his court believes that to allow the plaintiffs to remove Mr. Bell from the . . . buildings, which appear to be both ancillary to the farm land and to the CRP land, and traditionally have been used as I understand it to service that land, would be essentially allowing the plaintiffs to remove Mr. Bell from the CRP land if not specifically at least constructively.
Report of Proceedings (Apr. 9, 2018) at 9-10. As a result of this finding, the trial court
denied Loomis’s request for a writ of restitution.
Loomis requested reconsideration. In support of its argument, Loomis included a
declaration from Vivian Loomis. According to Ms. Loomis, the buildings are not
necessary to service the CRP contracts. The trial court denied Loomis’s reconsideration
request, and Loomis timely appealed both orders.
ANALYSIS
Loomis first argues that “RCW 59.12.035 applies to the entirety of a lease for
agricultural lands, including ancillary agricultural buildings.” Br. of Appellant at 9. Bell
and Largent Ranch respond that the present action “does not have anything to do with
agricultural land.” Br. of Resp’ts at 6.
Whether the action involves agricultural land is irrelevant. Chapter 59.12 RCW
provides the procedure that landlords must follow to remove nonresidential tenants.
Neither Bell nor Largent Ranch claim to be a residential tenant. Loomis properly brought
5 No. 36200-1-III Loomis Family v. Bell
an action under chapter 59.12 RCW to have Bell and Largent Ranch removed from its
nonresidential property.
Loomis next argues the trial court erred by finding that the shop and buildings
were ancillary or a subordinate part of the CRP contracts.
As the party challenging the finding, Loomis has the burden to show that the
finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Blackburn v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health
Servs., 186 Wn.2d 250, 256, 375 P.3d 1076 (2016). “Substantial evidence” is evidence
that is sufficient to persuade a rational fair-minded person of the truth of the finding. Id.
It is undisputed that the shop and buildings are not within the designated CRP
acreage. Also, there is nothing in the CRP contracts that require farming equipment to be
stored near the CRP acreage. This is unsurprising given that CRP acreage is not planted
with crops. Ms. Loomis declared under penalty of perjury that buildings are not
necessary to service CRP contracts. In a supplemental brief, Mr. Bell claims he intends to
use the shop to service the CRP contracts. This unsworn assertion is not evidence. See
Green v. A.P.C., 136 Wn.2d 87, 100, 960 P.2d 912 (1998) (noting that argument of
counsel does not constitute evidence).
6 No. 36200-1-111 Loomis Family v. Bell
We conclude that the trial court's finding that the buildings were a subordinate part
of the CRP contracts is not supported by substantial evidence. We, therefore, reverse the
trial court and instruct it to issue a writ of restitution restoring exclusive possession of the
shop and buildings on the property to Loomis. 2
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.
LA .....~r.s.-~W'l.11, Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. c..~. WE CONCUR:
~d/£Jw75, U3=-~ Siddoway, J. ~,Q- Pennell, J.
2 Respondents note that findings and conclusions were not entered. Findings and conclusions are not required unless there is an issue of fact that requires a trial. Here, no issue of fact was presented. See also CR 52(a)( 5) (generally, findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary for decisions on motions). Respondents also note that a judgment was not entered. As the prevailing party, respondents were responsible for preparing and noting the judgment. Respondents do not argue that this appeal is premature because of their pending counterclaim for damages. Had they made this argument, we likely would have rejected it. In general, a counterclaim for damages is improper in an action brought under chapter 59.12 RCW. Hall v. Feigenbaum, 178 Wn. App. 811, 818-19, 319 P.3~ 61 (2014).