Ellingsen v. Franklin County
810 P.2d 910, 1991 Wash. LEXIS 270, 117 Wash. 2d 24 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Filing a conveyance of an interest in real property in a government office other than the county auditor's office does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser unless the statute governing that office explicitly states that such filing constitutes notice to the world.
Facts:
- In 1908, a petition was initiated to establish a county road over private property in Franklin County.
- In 1909, the Franklin County commissioners passed a resolution formally establishing the road.
- The documents pertaining to the road's establishment, including any instruments granting an easement to the County, were filed and recorded in the Franklin County engineer's office.
- No document conveying the road easement to Franklin County was recorded in the office of the Franklin County auditor.
- The Ellingsens subsequently purchased the property over which Franklin County claimed the road easement.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ellingsens, as plaintiffs, sued Franklin County in Washington state trial court to quiet title against the County's claimed road easement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Ellingsens.
- Franklin County, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for trial.
- The Ellingsens, as petitioners, were granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does filing a road easement conveyance only in the county engineer's office, pursuant to a statute designating that office as an 'office of record,' provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser, even if it is not recorded with the county auditor under the state's general recording act?
Opinions:
Majority - Brachtenbach, J.
No. Filing a conveyance in the county engineer's office does not provide constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser. Constructive notice is a creation of statute, and for a record to provide such notice, the governing statute must explicitly state that effect. The statute requiring the county engineer to keep records (RCW 36.80.040) states its purpose is to create a 'complete history' for internal purposes, not to provide public notice. In contrast, the general recording act (RCW 65.08) explicitly states that recording with the county auditor 'shall be notice to all the world.' Allowing records from various government offices to provide constructive notice would create chaos in the land title system, undermining the stability and certainty that comes from relying on a single, central recording office.
Dissenting - Smith, J.
Yes. Filing documents pertaining to a county road in the county engineer's office provides constructive notice. The statute governing the engineer's office is more specific to county roads than the general recording act. It designates the engineer's office as 'one of record' for 'all matters concerning the public roads.' When the Legislature broadened the general recording act in 1927, it did not repeal or amend this specific provision for road records, implying an intent for the engineer's office to remain the official repository and thus the source of notice for such matters. The court should harmonize the two statutes by treating the engineer's office filing as sufficient for its specific subject matter.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the central and exclusive role of the county auditor's office in Washington's real property recording system. It establishes a clear rule that a statutory filing system outside the general recording act does not impart constructive notice unless the Legislature has expressly provided for it. The ruling prioritizes the certainty and predictability of land titles, ensuring that purchasers can confidently rely on a title search of a single, statutorily designated office. It also places the burden on government agencies to follow the same recording rules as private parties to protect their property interests against subsequent bona fide purchasers.
