Maier v. Giske
154 Wash. App. 6 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An instrument granting an easement with a precise metes and bounds description of the easement's location is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, even if the instrument does not also contain a legal description of the entire servient estate.
Facts:
- In 1976, the estate of Hilda Giske sold a parcel of land to the Luehrs family, which was eventually conveyed to James and Elizabeth Maier in 1999.
- The deed for this parcel included a non-exclusive easement over a 15-foot-wide strip of adjacent land, with the easement's location described by specific metes and bounds.
- The property burdened by the easement (the servient estate) was eventually acquired by Nancy Giske's son, Max Batres, with Giske acting as its caretaker.
- Around 1982, the Maiers' predecessors built a fence two feet north of the surveyed property line between their property and the Batres property.
- Giske landscaped and maintained this two-foot strip of land south of the fence as if it were her own for over 20 years, planting a large wax myrtle tree and other vegetation.
- In 2004, the Maiers began removing the fence and installing a string line on the correct, surveyed boundary, damaging the wax myrtle tree in the process.
- Giske then contracted to have a new fence installed on her son's property, which the Maiers claimed interfered with their easement rights.
- During the dispute, Elizabeth Hendrix-Maier pushed over a new fence post, and the Maiers removed nine arborvitae shrubs Giske had planted along an access way.
Procedural Posture:
- James Maier and Elizabeth Hendrix-Maier filed suit against Nancy Giske in a state trial court for trespass and nuisance, alleging she interfered with their easement.
- Giske asserted counterclaims seeking to quiet title to portions of the Maiers' property through adverse possession and requesting damages for injured plants and loss of lateral support.
- On Giske's motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the Maiers' claims, finding the easement void for failure to comply with the statute of frauds.
- After a bench trial on Giske's counterclaims, the trial court quieted title in Giske to some of the disputed property, awarded her $21,130 in damages, but rejected her other claims.
- The Maiers appealed the summary judgment dismissal and the trial verdict to the Washington Court of Appeals; Giske cross-appealed the rejection of some of her counterclaims.
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 an easement grant violate the statute of frauds if it provides a precise metes and bounds description of the easement's location but does not describe the entire servient estate over which the easement runs?
Opinions:
Majority - Lau, J.
No, the easement grant does not violate the statute of frauds. An instrument granting an easement complies with the statute of frauds if its description is sufficient to allow the easement to be located without recourse to oral testimony. Here, the Maiers' deed provides a precise metes and bounds description of the easement's northern, eastern, and western lines, and its width. This description is sufficient for a surveyor to locate the easement without parol evidence. The court distinguished this case from those involving 'floating easements,' where the easement's location is not fixed in the instrument. In such cases, the servient estate must be described. Because this easement's location is fixed and ascertainable from the deed itself, the failure to describe the entire servient estate is not fatal. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against the Maiers on this issue.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the statute of frauds to easements in Washington, distinguishing between fixed-location and 'floating' easements. It establishes that for an easement with a specific, ascertainable location described in the deed, the description is sufficient even without a full description of the servient parcel. This limits the holding of prior cases like Berg v. Ting, which required a description of the servient estate for an imprecisely located easement. The ruling provides greater security for holders of clearly described easements and prevents servient landowners from voiding an easement based on a technicality that does not undermine the statute's purpose of preventing fraud through oral evidence.
