In a September 15, 2025, unpublished opinion, Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the City of Lynnwood after a bench trial. The Court also found the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney fees to the Russells, because the court failed to provide sufficient findings to support the basis for the award.
The Russells brought an action to contest a 1-foot wide “nuisance strip” that had been deeded to the City without conditions. The Russells claimed the City’s use of the nuisance strip was constrained by the term “nuisance strip” as used in a plat document. The Court of Appeals held that the term “nuisance strip” does not impute any intention that the conveyance was for a particular purpose or limited the usage in any way. It also found substantial evidence supported each finding of fact made by the trial court.
The City also prevailed in its challenge to an award of attorney fees. Prior to trial but after the discovery cutoff date, the City discovered additional responsive documents, which it immediately produced to the Russells. The Court found the delay was inadvertent and not in bad faith. In response, the Russells sought fees in excess of $100,000 and a default judgment. That relief was denied. And although the trial court ultimately awarded fees to the Russells in the sum of $14,277.62, the Court of Appeals ruled that the award was unsupported by contemporaneous billing or other detailed records sufficient for the trial court to make a reasoned decision. In the absence of such detailed billing records, the Court found the trial court’s award constituted an abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Russell v. City of Lynnwood represents a clear and comprehensive win for the City. Not only did Division One affirm the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions, but it also reversed and remanded the unsupported attorney fee award in favor of the Russells. The ruling reinforces the principle that property conveyances must be interpreted based on clear legal standards—not ambiguous labels—and that fee awards require a solid evidentiary foundation.
