Court Opinion

ID: 9897988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:36.86323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:23.295455
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                                                                          FILED
                                                                        MAY 18, 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

       HAROLD MESSERSMITH, and LISA R.              )
       BRYANT, husband and wife,                    )         No. 38906-5-III
                                                    )
                           Respondents,             )
                                                    )
                      v.                            )         PUBLISHED OPINION
                                                    )
       TOWN OF ROCKFORD,                            )
                                                    )
                           Appellant.               )

              SIDDOWAY, J. — The town of Rockford appeals a summary judgment entered in

       favor of Harold Messersmith and Lisa Bryant, which quieted title to allegedly

       undeveloped roads and an alleyway dedicated by a plat for Waltman’s Addition recorded

       in 1889. Mr. Messersmith and Ms. Bryant relied on the terms of Washington’s nonuser

       statute as it existed between 1890 and 1909 to argue that the roads, having gone

       unopened for public use for more than five years, had reverted to their predecessor in

       interest.

              The nonuser statute imposes a time limit for opening only county roads. The

       roads and alleyway in Waltman’s Addition ceased to be subject to the nonuser statute in

       1890 when the town of Rockford was incorporated and Waltman’s Addition was annexed
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

       and became part of the town. We reverse the judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor and

       remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of the town of Rockford.

                            FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

              In August 2019, Harold Messersmith and his wife Lisa Bryant acquired title to the

       property commonly referred to as 442 East Lee Street in the town of Rockford. They

       later discovered that portions of their property, which included the 16 lots in block 14 of

       Waltman’s Addition, had been dedicated as part of Emma Street, Center Avenue, and an

       alleyway by the original plat for the addition. It had been recorded with the Spokane

       County auditor in June 1889. Emma Street, Center Avenue, and the alleyway had never

       been developed as roads and, according to Mr. Messersmith, the couple’s predecessors

       had developed the land on which the roads were to have been located, installing

       permanent fixtures, including fences, corrals, gardens, and sheds. Mr. Messersmith and

       Ms. Bryant brought the action below to quiet title to the strips of land that fell within the

       platted roads and alleyway.

              It is undisputed that when the plat of Waltman’s Addition was recorded in June

       1889, the platted property was located in unincorporated Spokane County. One year

       later, in June 1890, the town of Rockford incorporated, and Waltman’s Addition was

       annexed into Rockford. That same year, the state legislature passed the nonuser statute,

       now codified at RCW 36.87.090. It provided:

                                                     2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

              Any county road, or part thereof, which has heretofore been or may
              hereafter be authorized, which remains unopened for public use for the
              space of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening
              the same, shall be and the same is hereby vacated, and the authority for
              building the same barred by lapse of time.

       LAWS OF 1889-90, ch. 19, § 32.

              Mr. Messersmith and Ms. Bryant moved for summary judgment, relying on

       declarations from a former owner of the property, Mr. Messersmith, the couple’s lawyer,

       and a land surveyor, attesting that to their knowledge the roads and alleyway had never

       been opened for public use. Anticipating that the town of Rockford would contend that

       the automatic vacation feature of the 1890 statute was eliminated by legislative

       amendment in 1909,1 the plaintiffs argued in their summary judgment briefing that the

       change was irrelevant, since the roadways and alley would have automatically been

       vacated and reverted to their predecessor before the 1909 amendment.

              The town responded with different arguments, however. In its own motion for

       summary judgment, it argued that when Waltman’s Addition was annexed in 1890, its

       platted roads were removed from the operation of the nonuser statute. It also submitted a

       declaration from Heidi Johnson, the town clerk and treasurer, asserting that the roads and

       alleyway had been open for public use, creating a disputed issue of fact requiring trial.

              1
                 The 1909 amendment provided that the statute did not apply to “any highway,
       street, alley or public place dedicated as such in any plat, whether the land . . . be within
       or without the limits of any incorporated city or town, nor to any land conveyed by deed
       to the state or to any town, city or county for roads, streets, alleys or other public places.”
       LAWS OF 1909, ch. 90, § 1, recodified as RCW 36.87.090.

                                                      3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

              The trial court granted summary judgment to Mr. Messersmith and Ms. Bryant,

       resting its decision on the fact that the subject properties “were not opened for public use

       within the statutorily required five (5) year period to avoid automatic vacation.” Clerk’s

       Papers (CP) at 135. The town of Rockford appeals.

                                               ANALYSIS

              The town of Rockford continues to advance both arguments presented to the trial

       court. It is supported in its argument that the nonuser statute applies to only “county”

       roads by amicus curiae, the Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys. The

       legal argument that the nonuser statute does not apply proves dispositive.

              Summary judgment orders are reviewed de novo, with this court engaging in the

       same inquiry as the trial court. Lee v. State, 185 Wn.2d 608, 614, 374 P.3d 157 (2016).

       Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the

       moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Construction of a

       statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Lee, 185 Wn.2d at 614.

              The issue of whether the nonuser statute operates to automatically vacate

       unopened roads that fall within a city or town has been touched on in several Washington

       decisions. In a controlling decision by our Supreme Court, Brokaw v. Town of Stanwood,

       79 Wash. 322, 140 P. 358 (1914), the Brokaws sought to enjoin the town of Stanwood

       from taking possession of, and improving for street use, a 16.5 by 280 foot strip of land

       along the south border of their property. The strip fell within the boundary of “Rainier

                                                    4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

       Street” as platted and dedicated on a plat recorded with the Snohomish County auditor in

       July 1891. Id. at 323. The Brokaws contended that the nonuser statute adopted in 1890

       supported their claim to the land because up until the time they acquired the property in

       1902, and thereafter, the town of Stanwood had never used it as a public street. Id. at

       324. Alternatively, they claimed to have acquired title by adverse possession. Id. at 326-

       27.

              In ruling in favor of the town, the Supreme Court first reasoned that for the period

       from the 1891 recording of the plat until the Brokaws acquired the property in 1902, no

       evidence was presented that Rainier Street was not opened for public use:

              For aught that appears in this record, . . . Rainier street, along in front of
              respondents’ lots, may have, during this entire period, been actually
              physically open for public use, unobstructed, unenclosed and, by nature,
              well suited for ordinary travel by such means as are in common use upon
              public highways.

       Id. at 325. The court also set a low bar for proving a road opened, holding that “[t]he

       public is not, under all circumstances, obliged to take physical possession of public

       highways whether they have been acquired by dedication or otherwise, in order to

       preserve its rights therein.” Id. at 326.

              Turning to the issue relevant to the present case, the court held it “manifest” that

       once the town of Stanwood was incorporated in 1903, the Brokaws had no argument:

                                                     5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

              That incorporation brought the street within the corporate limits of the
              town, thereby exempting it from the further operation of the law of 1890
              above quoted. It was, thereafter, no longer subject to vacation or to being
              lost to the public by the operation of that statute, since that statute had no
              application to streets within cities and towns.

       Id. at 327.

              Mr. Messersmith and Ms. Bryant seek to avoid the plain import of this passage by

       arguing that it was dictum. We disagree. “‘[D]icta’ is ‘language not necessary to the

       decision in a particular case.’” ADCI Corp. v. Nguyen, 16 Wn. App. 2d 77, 86, 479 P.3d

       1175 (2021) (quoting In re Marriage of Roth, 72 Wn. App. 566, 570, 865 P.2d 43

       (1994)). The passage in Brokaw was not unnecessary; it supplied a second reason why

       the Brokaws’ claim could not succeed. “‘[W]here a decision rests on two or more

       grounds, none can be relegated to the category of obiter dictum.’” State v. White, 135

       Wn.2d 761, 767 n.3, 958 P.2d 982 (1998) (alterations in original) (quoting Woods v.

       Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535, 537, 69 S. Ct. 1235, 93 L. Ed. 1524 (1949)).

              In any event, Brokaw is supported by other reported Washington cases. In holding

       that the nonuser statute ceased to operate once Rainier Street fell within the town of

       Stanwood’s corporate limits, Brokaw cited as support the court’s 1907 decision in

       Murphy v. King County, 45 Wash. 587, 88 P. 1115. Brokaw, 79 Wash. at 324-25. That

       opinion held that the nonuser statute had operated to automatically vacate unopened

       roads dedicated by a plat of land located in unincorporated King County, observing that

       the nonuser statute applied only to county roads:

                                                     6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

                     There may be strong and controlling reasons why a street in a city or
              town should not be deemed vacated after the lapse of five years, unless
              open to public travel within that time, but on the other hand we see no
              plausible reason why the right of a board of county commissioners to open
              a public highway should continue forever . . . .

                     We will add, in conclusion that [the nonuser statute] applies only to
              roads and highways under the control and supervision of the boards of
              county commissioners of the respective counties, and this decision in no
              manner conflicts with the decision in [Town of] West Seattle v. West Seattle
              [Land & ] Imp[rovement] Co., 38 Wash. 359, 80 P[.] 549 [1905], and other
              cases in this court where streets and alleys in incorporated cities and towns
              were involved.

       Murphy, 45 Wash. at 593.

              Finally, this court held that Brokaw correctly stated the law on this score in

       Northwestern Industries, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 33 Wn. App. 757, 761, 658 P.2d 24

       (1983). Northwestern had filed suit to quiet title to a strip of land running between two

       parcels of its property; the strip had been dedicated as an avenue by a plat filed in King

       County in 1890. Id. at 758. In 1891, the area was annexed to the city of Seattle. Id. In

       seeking to quiet title, Northwestern evidently argued, as Mr. Messersmith and Ms. Bryant

       do, that the Supreme Court’s discussion in Brokaw about the nonuser statute not applying

       to streets within cities and towns was dictum. Id. at 761.

              This court disagreed. It pointed out that the nonuser statute was enacted as part of

       an act “Relating to County Roads.” Id. at 759. Absent a “clear and unambiguous”

       legislative directive, it refused to read the state law as interfering with the rules and

       ordinances of a city. Id. at 759-60. It likewise refused to construe the nonuser statute as

                                                      7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town of Rockford

       creating a vested right of reversion in the landowner, should a public road not be opened

       in five years. Id. at 760.

              Mr. Messersmith and Ms. Bryant argue that Northwestern held only that the court

       would not construe the nonuser statute “‘to interfere with the power of a first-class city

       such as Seattle over its own streets.’” Resp’ts’ Br. at 7 (alteration in original) (quoting

       Northwestern, 33 Wn. App. at 759-60). While Seattle is a first-class city and the quoted

       language appears in the opinion, the court’s holding was unrelated to Seattle’s status as a

       first-class city. The basis for reversal was the fact that within one year of the plat being

       recorded, the property “pass[ed] . . . out of county control and therefore out of the reach

       of the statute’s operation.” Id. at 760. Elsewhere, addressing Northwestern’s argument

       that the court should disregard Brokaw’s statement “that incorporation of the Town of

       Stanwood tolled the operation of the nonuser statute,” the court held that even if the

       statement could be characterized as dictum, “our analysis of the statute shows that the

       court there made a correct statement of the law,” and “[t]he trial court did not err in

       following it.” Id. at 761.

              The plain language of the nonuser statute as it existed at relevant times limits its

       application to “county” roads. LAWS OF 1889-90, ch. 19, § 32. It ceased to apply to the

       roads in Waltman’s Addition in June 1890, when the town of Rockford incorporated and

       Waltman’s Addition was annexed into and became part of the town. We reverse the

                                                     8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38906-5-III
       Messersmith v. Town ofRockford

       summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remand with directions to enter

       judgment in favor of the town of Rockford.

       WE CONCUR:

        . f ~ ,.:r.
       Fearing,ci,

                                                    9