Court Opinion

ID: 9898522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:31:16.336466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:18.720017
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       JUNE 1, 2023
                                                              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

NOT ENOUGH TREES, LLC, a Washington          )
Limited Liability Company,                   )        No. 39092-6-III
                                             )
                     Appellant,              )
                                             )
       v.                                    )
                                             )        UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WALTER D. DAVIS and JUDITH K.                )
DAVIS, husband and wife and the marital      )
community composed thereof,                  )
                                             )
                     Respondents.            )

       FEARING, C.J. — This appeal concerns the destruction of four plum trees. We

must decide whether the president of a condominium association possessed, within the

meaning RCW 64.12.030, the timber trespass statute, the lawful authority to remove trees

on the outside of the condominium building without the consent of an association

member. Because the condominium covenants and bylaws indisputably granted the

president that authority, we affirm the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of the president.

                                        FACTS

       This lawsuit involves concerns the affairs of a condominium association formed to

manage Spokane’s historic Commission Building, built in 1906. The plaintiff is Not
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

Enough Trees, LLC (NET), a limited liability company owned by Paul and Jennifer

Mitchell. The defendants are Walter Dean Davis (Dean) and his wife. Davis serves as

the president of the Commission Building Unit Owners’ Association (CBUOA or

association). We refer to Dean Davis as if he is the sole defendant. We garner the facts

from affidavits filed in support of and in opposition to cross motions for summary

judgment. The facts include extensive language from the covenants and bylaws of the

association.

       In 1986, Marlund Simchuk, the owner of the Commission Building, transformed

the two-story downtown Spokane produce warehouse into a condominium for business

offices. The condominium building contains twenty-four commercial units, twelve on

each floor. Simchuk then recorded with the county auditor the governing Declaration,

and Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Reservations for the Commission Building

Condominium (covenants). The language of the covenants controls in part the question

of whether the condominium president held authority to remove landscaping.

       The Commission Building covenants established the CBUOA consisting of all unit

owners in the condominium. The ownership of each of the twenty-four units is entitled to

one vote for condominium business. One vote represents a voting interest of 4.1666

percent.

       Section 7 of the Commission Building covenants governs administration of the

association and designates a Board of Trustees (board). Section 7.01.4 reads:

                                            2
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

             7.01.4 Board. The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a
       Board and by such officers as the Association or Board may designate.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 436. This covenant does not require any delegation of duties to

the president from the association to be in writing. Section 7 further declares:

               7.01.6 Powers and Duties. The duties and powers of the
       Association shall be as set forth in this Declaration and the Bylaws,
       together with those reasonably implied to effect [sic] the purposes of the
       Association and this Declaration. The powers and duties of the Association
       shall be exercised in the manner provided for by this Declaration and the
       Bylaws and any duties or rights of the Association which are granted by or
       are to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration
       shall be so exercised, except that, wherever this Declaration requires the act
       or approval of the Board, such act or approval must be done or given in
       accordance with the Bylaws.

CP at 438.

       Paragraph 8.01.03 authorizes the condominium board:

              [to] acquire and pay for the following out of the common expense
       fund as hereinafter provided:
              (A) The improvement, lighting, maintenance and repair of walks,
       gateways, fences, ornamental features, building exteriors and other
       common areas and facilities now existing or hereafter to be constructed or
       created. . . .
              ....
              (F) Painting, maintenance, repair and replacement and all
       landscaping of the common areas and such furnishings and equipment for
       the common areas as the Board shall determine are necessary and proper.

CP at 438.

       Section 4 of the Commission Building covenants defines the building’s common

areas as:

                                             3
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

               4.01.02 Structural Elements. The foundations, studding, joists,
       beams, supports, walls (excluding only non-bearing interior partitions of
       the units), roofs, chimneys and fireplace walls, if any, and all other
       structural parts of the building to the unfinished interior surfaces of the
       units’ perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, fireplaces, if any, windows and
       doors (that is, to the boundaries of the units under the Act).
               ....
               4.01.04 Access Features. The corridors, lobbies and halls outside
       the units, stairways, and the entrances and exits of the building.
               4.01.05 Landscaped Areas. The yards, gardens, and landscaped
       areas which surround the building, and any planters build into or adjacent
       to the building.
               4.01.06 Walkways and Driveways. The driveways and walkways
       providing access to the building and the parking areas
               ....
               4.01.08 All Other Parts of the Property Necessary or Convenient to
       the condominium’s existence, maintenance, and safety, or normally in
       common use.

CP at 433 (emphasis added).

       The CBUOA covenants also delegate authority to the condominium association as

a whole, as opposed to the board, to maintain, repair, and replace common areas. Section

12.06 declares in part:

             The Association, at its expense, shall be responsible for the
       maintenance, repair and replacement of . . . [a]ll common areas.

CP at 445.

       Marland Simchuk attached to the covenants and filed as one continuous document

with the covenants pages entitled “Bylaws of Commission Building Unit Owners’

Association” (bylaws). The covenants identify the bylaws as exhibit D, and the label

exhibit D appears on the bylaws. Section 7.01.5 of the covenants references the bylaws:

                                            4
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

              7. 01.5 Bylaws. The Bylaws of the Association shall be in the form
       of Exhibit “D” attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein,
       and the unit owners hereby covenant to adopt these Bylaws at the first
       meeting of the Association.

CP at 437. Simchuk never signed the bylaws. No record exists to confirm whether the

unit owners adopted the bylaws at its first meeting as required by the covenants.

       We recite relevant sections of Commission Building condominium bylaws.

Article III addresses the authority and duties of trustees.

              Section 2. Powers of Trustees.
              Subject to the powers of the members as provided by law or as
       herein set forth, all powers of the Association shall be exercised by or under
       the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Association shall be
       controlled by, the Board of Trustees. Without limiting the generality of the
       foregoing, the Board of Trustees shall have the following powers:
              (a) To appoint and remove all officers, agents, and employees of the
       Association, prescribe such powers and duties for them as may not be
       inconsistent with the law, the Declaration or the Bylaws. . . .
              (b) To conduct and manage the affairs and business of the
       Association. . . .
              ....
              (e) To have and exercise all of the power and authority granted to the
       Board of Trustees under the Declaration and these Bylaws

CP at 476-77. Section 12 appointed Marlund Simchuk as the sole trustee until a

transition date.

       Article IV of the bylaws addressed officers of CBUOA.

              Section 1. Officers.
              The officers of this Association shall be a president, vice-president,
       and secretary/treasurer, and such other officer as the Board of Trustees may
       appoint. . . .
              ....

                                              5
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

                Section 5. President.
                Subject to the control of the Board of Trustees, the president shall
         have general supervision, direction and control of the business and affairs
         of the Association.

CP at 480.

         According to CBUOA member Bradley Bergler, the association has never elected

a board. The president of the association has assumed the responsibility for management

and maintenance of the property and landscaping.

         We return to some history behind the Commission Building and the condominium

association. From 1995 to 2017, Steve Clark owned units 111 and 112 of the

condominium building. Before purchasing the units, Clark observed that the loading

dock near the units had fallen into disrepair, and he believed that planting trees in its

vicinity would enhance the aesthetic appeal of the loading dock area and the

condominium as a whole. The trees would take years to grow to sufficient size to

contribute to the aesthetics. So, Clark endeavored to condition his purchase of units 111

and 112 on obtaining an addendum to the association covenants. The Clark Addendum

reads:

                The terms of the sale of Units #111 and #112 of the Commission
         Building Condominium, West 216 Pacific Avenue, Spokane, WA., by
         Robert W. and Kathleen L. Hess to Stephen R. and Sharon K. Clark,
         require written acknowledgement and approval by the [CBUOA] of the
         following contingencies:
                Within thirty days of acceptance of this offer by Seller, Seller is to
         secure written acknowledgement and approval by Condominium
         Association of delegation to Purchaser and Purchaser’s successors of the

                                                6
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

      right to use and control access to the easterly 72 feet of the existing loading
      dock north of Unit #112 for purposes of his business entry and to perform
      the following items:
              a. Maintenance, improvement and/or replacement of existing
      windows and entry doors within confines of three existing arched brick
      openings at the north exterior wall of Unit #112.
              b. Maintenance, improvement and/or replacement of existing
      security fence and gate.
              c. Maintenance, improvement and/or replacement of existing
      lightweight steel trellis/roof structure on the north lower face of structure.
              d. Installation of approved trees and other landscape materials in
      concrete or other approved planters.
              e. Installation of additional steel and concrete stairs and handrail to
      match existing and concrete pad at existing planter in northeast corner of
      parking area to access loading dock, or alternate access to loading dock as
      mutually agreed upon.
              f. Removal of broken concrete remains and repair at lower
      northwest corner of structure.
              g. Repair of broken/damaged south concrete edge of loading dock
      adjacent to stairs in item “e” above.
              h. Chemical or other approved method of cleaning brick face of
      lower portion or entire north wall of structure.
              i. Installation of additional trees and other landscape material in
      existing planters adjacent to Units #111 and #112 and stairs in item “e”
      above.
              j. Installation of business sign(s) as designated by purchaser
      adjacent to stairs in item “e” above.
              It is understood that none of the above is intended to alter, extend or
      restrict provisions within the existing Condominium [covenants] pertaining
      to use and access of Common Areas and Limited Common Areas described
      in Sections 4 and 5, as applied to said portions of north loading dock. Any
      of the improvements listed above will be done at Purchaser’s expense
      unless otherwise assumed by the Condominium Association. Planting and
      other improvements made by Purchaser will be maintained in good
      condition by Purchaser, unless otherwise assumed by Condominium
      Association. All design, character, material, and color of improvements
      shall be subject to reasonable approval of Condominium Association.
              As a further contingency within thirty days of acceptance of this
      offer, Seller shall secure written approval by Condominium Association for

                                             7
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

       Purchaser to install at his cost one additional matching entry each to the
       west wall of Units #111 and #112, including potential extension of
       matching existing walkway as required to access Unit #112.
             The above listed contingencies are hereby acknowledged and
       approved by the following signors on behalf of the [CBUOA] as legally
       provided under the [covenants] of the Condominium.

CP at 485-86.

       The record contains two copies of the Clark Addendum. One copy includes

signature lines for the president and other members of the association. In November

1994, then president Rick Hosmer signed this copy. No other members signed the copy.

A second copy of the addendum contains only a signature line for the association

president. In February 1995, Hosmer signed this copy. No one recorded either copy of

the addendum.

       According to CBUOA member Dale Shafer, Shafer and other members of the

association elected not to sign the Clark Addendum because they did not wish to

surrender rights under the covenants. The purchase and sale agreement to Steve Clark

and the deed to Clark for units 111 and 112 did not reference the Clark Addendum.

       After purchasing units 111 and 112, Steve Clark planted plum trees. Before

planting the trees, Clark employed a contractor to cut and remove five sections of

concrete on the loading dock. Heavy equipment filled five planters and the underlying

portions of the loading dock with soil. Clark planted one plum tree in each planter.

Clark paid for the cost of the installation of the trees.

                                               8
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

       In 2004, Dean Davis purchased units 101-103 in the condominium. In 2016 he

purchased unit 104. Davis operates a commercial photography business in units 101-103.

Davis has served as president of the CBUOA since 2007. President Davis administers

the association informally. As president of the association, Davis has overseen grounds

maintenance, security, and landscaping for the Commission Building. Davis lacked any

knowledge of the Clark Addendum.

       In 2012, Brad Bergler, Steve Clark’s upstairs neighbor, complained about the

maintenance of Clark’s plum trees. The trees shed fruit, four of the trees had grown into

the overhanging trellis, and the trees blocked Bergler’s view from his windows. Clark

took little, to no, steps to alleviate Bergler’s murmuring. In 2014, Bergler e-mailed

members of the CBUOA, including Clark, requesting that the trees be pruned or thinned.

Clark still took no steps.

       In 2017, Brad Bergler complained to CBUOA President Dean Davis about Steve

Clark’s plum trees. Davis consulted arborist Kelly Chadwick about pruning the plum

trees. Chadwick noticed that four trees had grown through the trellis attached to the

building and that the trees had outgrown their respective planting pots. Chadwick

commented that the trees might die from the overgrowth. Pruning the plum trees would

not solve the problem of the trees outgrowing the planters. Chadwick recommended

removal of the trees.

                                             9
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

       Brad Bergler unsurprisingly agreed to removal of the plum trees. Bergler owns an

interest in seven of the twenty-four units.

       Jerry Thew owns three or four units of the Commission Building. He concurs that

the members conducted business informally through the presidency of Dean Davis.

Davis kept the membership informed. Thew gave Davis permission for removal of the

plum trees. Thew agreed the trees caused a problem.

       Darin Klundt owns an interest in four of the Commission Building units. Klundt

confirms that President Dean Davis cared for maintenance of the grounds, landscaping,

parking lot, and outside lighting. The plum trees created a problem, and Steve Clark

failed to maintain them. Davis informed Klundt of the prospective removal of the trees.

Klundt raised no objection.

       Dean Davis contacted Jill Weaver, also a unit owner and member in CBUOA.

Weaver owns three units. According to Weaver, President Davis performed common

area maintenance and maintains landscaping. Weaver wondered if the trees could be

trimmed. Nevertheless, Weaver gave approval for removal.

       Over the objection of his attorney, Paul Mitchell, owner of NET, testified that the

president of the association possesses authority to perform landscaping.

       On November 29, 2017, Steve Clark sold condominium units 111 and 112 to NET.

Paul and Jennifer Mitchell’s love of trees made the plum trees a significant factor in

                                              10
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

NET’s decision to purchase Clark’s units. Despite the sale in November 2017, Clark

occupied the units under a rental agreement until February 2, 2018.

       Dean Davis, on behalf of CBUOA, hired Allan Etherton to remove four of the five

plum trees. Etherton and his crew removed the trees, during a three-and-one-half hour

project, on either February 3 or 4, 2018. Etherton observed that the four trees had grown

into the trellis. The Mitchells discovered the absence of the trees on February 5.

Thereafter someone on behalf of the Mitchells planted flowers in the planters.

                                      PROCEDURE

       NET sued Dean Davis for damages under RCW 64.12.030, Washington’s timber

trespass statute, for the removal of the four plum trees. We do not know why NET did

not sue the association.

       NET filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Dean Davis’

liability under the statute, and Davis filed a cross motion for summary judgment to

dismiss the action. The superior court granted Davis’ motion and correspondingly denied

NET’s motion.

                                 LAW AND ANALYSIS

       On appeal, NET contends that the superior court should have granted it summary

judgment, but at the least the court should have denied Dean Davis’ motion because of

disputed material facts. The gist of the appeal is whether Davis possessed lawful

                                            11
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

authority to remove the trees as required by RCW 64.12.030. This question depends

more on condominium law than trespass law.

       RCW 64.12.030 declares:

              Whenever any person shall cut down, girdle, or otherwise injure, or
       carry off any tree . . . on the land of another person, . . . without lawful
       authority, in an action by the person . . . against the person committing the
       trespasses or any of them, any judgment for the plaintiff shall be for treble
       the amount of damages claimed or assessed.

(Emphasis added.) RCW 64.12.030 evidences the importance of timber to Washington

State. The Washington territorial legislature enacted the timber trespass statute in 1869

to punish an offender, provide treble damages, and discourage persons from carelessly or

intentionally removing another’s merchantable shrubs or trees on the gamble that the

enterprise will be profitable if actual damages only are incurred. LAWS OF WASH. Terr.

1869, ch. XLVIII, § 556; Guay v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 62 Wn.2d 473, 476, 383

P.2d 296 (1963). The text has remained the same except with the addition of the

language “Christmas trees.” LAWS OF 2009, ch. 349, § 4. We doubt that the legislature

contemplated applying the trespass statute to trees in planters outside a commercial

downtown building, but we still apply the statute.

       The timber trespass statute is penal in its nature, not merely remedial. Broughton

Lumber Co. v. BNSF Railway Co., 174 Wn.2d 619, 633, 278 P.3d 173 (2012); Grays

Harbor County v. Bay City Lumber Co., 47 Wn.2d 879, 886, 289 P.2d 975 (1955);

Gardner v. Lovegren, 27 Wash. 356, 362, 67 P. 615 (1902). As such, this court strictly

                                             12
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

construes the statute. Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Railway Co., 174 Wln.2d 619, 633

(2012).

       RCW 64.12.040, a companion statute to RCW 64.12.030, excuses the trespasser

from treble damages if she or he possessed probable cause to believe he or she owned the

land on which the trees grew. Dean Davis does not assert this statute, presumably

because its application would still expose him to single damages. Davis, however, seeks

to avoid liability under a theory that NET did not own the land on which the four plum

trees sat. We do not rely on this theory. Under a Washington Supreme Court ruling, the

defendant need not trespass on the plaintiff’s property for RCW 64.12.030 to apply as

long as the defendant trespasses against the tree. Jongeward v. BNSF Railway Co., 174

Wn.2d 586, 606 (2012).

       NET claims the benefit of the timber trespass statute on the theory that it was, at a

minimum, part owner of the trees. NET emphasizes that tenants in common of a tree

have rights under the statute. Herring v. Pelayo, 198 Wn. App. 828, 837, 397 P.3d 125

(2017). Under RCW 64.32.050(1) condominium owners hold an undivided interest in

common areas.

       RCW 64.12.030 may require not only ownership, but the right to possession of the

trees to prevail. Bloedel Timberlands Development, Inc. v. Timber Industries, Inc., 28

Wn. App. 669, 679, 626 P.2d 30 (1981). Dean Davis does not argue that NET lacked a

right to possess the plum trees.

                                             13
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

       NET fleetingly contends that, under the Clark Addendum, NET possessed sole

ownership of the plum trees and the sole right to maintain the trees. But NET fails to

analyze whether the Clark Addendum bound the association or other unit owners when

owners in 1994 objected to the addendum, no one recorded the addendum, and the

addendum amended the covenants without approval of a majority of unit owners. NET

also fails to analyze whether the association would still own the right to remove the trees,

despite NET’s sole ownership, when the trees created a nuisance and interfered in the

enjoyment of other unit owners. Appellate courts need not consider arguments

unsupported by pertinent authority or meaningful analysis. Cook v. Brateng, 158 Wn.

App. 777, 794, 262 P.3d 1228 (2010), rev’d on other grounds, 180 Wn. App. 368 P.3d

1255 (2014).

       Both parties focus on whether Dean Davis possessed “lawful authority” to remove

the plum trees. We do also. By its own terms, RCW 64.12.030 only applies to persons

acting “without lawful authority.” Mustoe v. Ma, 193 Wn. App. 161, 170, 371 P.3d 544

(2016).

       No case discusses whether one lacked “lawful” authority under the statute. We

question whether the addition of the word “lawful” to the word “authority” adds any

meaning to the statute. All authority should be lawful. We have never heard of anyone

acting pursuant to “unlawful authority.” We decline to promulgate an authoritative

definition for “without lawful authority” for purposes of RCW 64.12.030. We merely

                                             14
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

hold that under the circumstances of this appeal, even in a light most favorable to NET,

Dean Davis possessed lawful authority to remove the four plum trees.

       NET contends that, since one co-owner of a tree may be found liable to another

co-owner for damage to the tree, only one with exclusive property ownership over the

common area or the trees possesses “lawful authority.” This reading goes too far. NET’s

position would impose liability on the government for destroying a tree infested with

noxious insects or a disease for the purpose of preventing the insects or disease from

spreading to neighboring property. NET’s theory would also hold one liable for damage

to a tree even if given permission from the tree’s owner to sever the tree.

       Next, NET employs the definition attached to the phrase “authority of law” for

purposes of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution as it relates to search and

seizure law. In State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 68-69, 720 P.2d 808 (1986) held that

“‘authority of law’ includes authority granted by a valid . . . statute, the common law or a

rule of this court.” Based on this passage, NET contends Dean Davis needed statutory or

rulatory authority to remove the plum trees. We question whether we should utilize the

search and seizure definition for the phrase in the context of the timber trespass statute.

Nevertheless, because the Supreme Court included the word “includes” in the passage,

“authority of law” could encompass more than a statute, the common law, or a court rule.

We also suspect that authority under the common law could include authority by contract,

a license, or other form of permission. Washington case law reads that “lawful authority”

                                             15
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

in the context of RCW 64.12.030 can mean that the rightful owner of the trees

“acquiesced in and consented to the cutting and removal of the timber.” Lytle Logging &

Mercantile Co. v. Humptulips Driving Co., 60 Wash. 559, 561, 111 P. 774 (1910).

      We look to Washington condominium statutes, the Commission Building

covenants and bylaws, and practices of CBUOA to probe whether Dean Davis possessed

lawful authority to remove trees from common areas. NET concedes the plum trees sat

within common areas.

      The Horizontal Property Regime Act (HPRA), Chapter RCW 64.32, governs

condominiums established in Washington between 1963 and July 1, 1990. The HPRA

permits a condominium association to adopt its own declaration and bylaws. Lake v.

Woodcreek Homeowners Association, 169 Wn.2d 516, 521, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010). The

HPRA permits a condominium to designate common areas, wherein unit owners own an

undivided interest. Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Association, 169 Wn.2d 516, 521-

22 (2010); Rouse v. Glascam Builders, Inc., 101 Wn.2d 127, 131, 677 P.2d 125 (1984).

Common areas include entrances and exits of the building, roofs, corridors, yards,

gardens, and parking areas. RCW 64.32.010(6). The association’s declarations may

extend the extent of the common areas. RCW 64.32.010(6).

      RCW 64.32.030 provides that each unit owner lacks the exclusive right to

ownership and possession of common areas. Use of the common areas should not

                                           16
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

encroach on the rights of other members. RCW 64.32.050(4). Under RCW

64.32.050(5),

              [t]he necessary work of maintenance, repair and replacement of the
       common areas and facilities and the making of any addition or
       improvement thereto shall be carried out only as provided in [the HRPA]
       and in the bylaws.

       We emphasize some of the covenants and bylaws of the CBUOA, to which NET

consented when purchasing units 111 and 112. Section 7.01.4 of the covenants

authorizes management of the affairs of the association by designated officers like

President Dean Davis. The same section provides for adoption of maintenance and other

procedures to prevent unreasonable uses and interference with common areas. Section

8.01.3(A) provides for the use of common expense funds to pay for maintenance of

ornamental features, exteriors, and common areas.

       Section 12.06 of the covenants delegates maintenance of all common areas to the

association. Section 12.07 of the covenants allows for maintenance of exterior

appearance and structures including awnings. The CBUOA’s covenants define “common

areas” as including roofs, chimneys, corridors, entrances, exits, yards, gardens,

landscaping, and walkways. CP at 433-34. The covenants particularly define common

areas as “planters built into or adjacent to the building.” CP at 433-34.

       We do not deem the CBUOA bylaws necessary to our holding in favor of Dean

Davis. Nevertheless, we deem them binding and supportive of Davis’ right to remove the

                                            17
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

trees. Although Marlund Simchuk, the creator of the condominium association, never

signed the bylaws, he attached them to the signed covenants and recorded the bylaws as

part of the covenants. The signed covenants incorporated the bylaws. The association

never sought to alter the bylaws thereafter.

       Article IV of the bylaws allows the board to delegate its authority to officers. The

bylaws afforded the president the power of general supervision, direction, and control of

the business and affairs of the association. The bylaws assumed that the president will

serve on the board. Since no other board members were ever selected, Dean Davis could

be considered the sole trustee.

       The undisputed facts demonstrate that members of the CBUOA deemed Dean

Davis to be president of the association at all times relevant with the authority to maintain

common areas. NET does not identify any other body or person that functioned as the

administrator of the association. NET does not identify any other functioning body or

person in control of the common areas. In effect, Davis became de facto trustee and

president with authority to govern the common areas at the Commission Building. The

acts of a de facto officer hold the same validity as a duly elected officer. In re Bankers

Trust, 403 F.2d 16, 20 (7th Cir. 1968); Permagon Press, Inc. v. Ross, 61 Misc. 2d 479,

306 N.Y.S.2d 103, 105-06 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969).

       NET fails to develop any argument that, because of the failure to ever elect a

board, no one on behalf of the association could exercise the powers reserved to the board

                                               18
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

under the covenants and bylaws. If no board was active and assuming Dean Davis lacked

authority to govern the common areas, the power likely reverted to the members and the

members could decide by majority vote whether to remove landscaping deemed

detrimental to the association. The undisputed facts establish that Davis received

approval from those holding at least twenty-one of the twenty-four units of voting power

in the association. With few exceptions under the covenants, a vote of at least a majority

of the voting power prevails.

       This court reviews an order granting or denying summary judgment de novo and

performs the same inquiry as the trial court. Jones v. Allstate Insurance Co., 146 Wn.2d

291, 300, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002); Auto Sox USA Inc. v. Zurich North America, 121 Wn.

App. 422, 425, 88 P.3d 1008 (2004). The moving party has the initial burden of

establishing the absence of an issue of material fact. Cox v. Malcolm, 60 Wn. App. 894,

897, 808 P.2d 758 (1991). This court views “all facts and reasonable inferences

therefrom most favorably toward the nonmoving party,” and “will grant the motion only

if reasonable people could reach but one conclusion.” Lybbert v. Grant County, 141

Wn.2d 29, 34, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000); Coggle v. Snow, 56 Wn. App. 499, 509, 784 P.2d 554

(1990). If the moving party establishes its motion is adequately supported, the

nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue requiring

trial.” Cox v. Malcolm, 60 Wn. App. 894, 897 (1991). Summary judgment is appropriate

“if the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions establish that there is no genuine issue as to

                                              19
No. 39092-6-III,
Not Enough Trees, LLC v. Davis

any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29, 34 (2000).

       The undisputed facts show that Dean Davis assumed the position of president or

sole trustee of CBUOA, that the covenants and bylaws granted the board and the

president authority to control common areas including planters, that the overwhelming

majority of owners treated Davis as the governing authority for the common areas, and

that the overwhelming majority of owners approved of the removal of the four plum

trees. NET has failed to forward facts thwarting these factual conclusions.

                                     CONCLUSION

       We affirm the superior court’s grant to Dean Davis of summary judgment

dismissal of NET’s claim under the timber trespass statute.

       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.

                                             _________________________________
                                             Fearing, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________               _________________________________
Pennell, J.                                  Staab, J.

                                            20