Logo

(509) 455-9555

NEWS

SUMMER ASSOCIATE REFLECTIONS, WRITTEN BY ALAYNA M. PIWONSKI

JUNE 2020-BOARD OF DIRECTOR STATEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY EVENTS

LUKINS & ANNIS, P.S. MOURNS THE LOSS OF GENE ANNIS, RETIRED FOUNDER OF THE FIRM, WHO PASSED THIS WEEK SURROUNDED BY HIS FAMILY.

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: WHAT STEPS CAN I TAKE TO MINIMIZE RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IF I END UP IN A CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE?

Charles Hausberg  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: WHAT ARE UNIQUE ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE OFFICE LEASES?

Joe Romberg  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN ERRORS

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: ESTATE PLANNING

David Webster  

LOCAL NEWS: INVESTIGATION REOPENED IN DEATH OF BICYCLIST RYAN HOLYK

Mike Maurer  

LOCAL NEWS: IN HOLYK CASE, SCIENTIST'S TESTIMONY DOESN'T SQUARE WITH INVESTIGATORS' STATEMENTS

Mike Maurer  

LOCAL NEWS: EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL SETTLES PATIENT DEATH LAWSUIT FOR $360,000

Mike Franklin   Kelly Konkright  

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: HOW WILL YOU BE REMEMBERED? LEADING BY DOING AND THE WELL-LIVED LIFE

SPECIAL REPORT BILL HYSLOP: ENSURING ACCESSIBLILITY

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: WHAT ARE YOUR PERSONAL "LEGAL" RESOLUTIONS FOR THE NEW YEAR?

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - EASEMENTS

WILLIAM HYSLOP SWORN IN AS WSBA PRESIDENT

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - HIPAA

L&A IN LOCAL NEWS> HOLYK'S DNA FOUND ON PATROL CAR; SHERIFF DENIES THAT DEPUTY HIT BICYCLIST

Mike Maurer  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - PROBATE

Tom Culbertson  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - WHAT VALUE DOES A BUSINESS ATTORNEY BRING TO MY COMPANY?

Paul Davis  

IDAHO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE COMPLIMENTS WINNING LUKINS & ANNIS ATTORNEY IN TRUST LITIGATION

LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS REVERSAL OF INJUNCTION ON LAND USER RESTRICTIONS BY THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT

Michael Hines  

LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF HOME OWNER'S LAWSUIT BY DIVISION III OF THE WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS

LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS SIGNIFICANT 9TH CIRCUIT DECISION AGAINST RED LION HOTEL FRANCHISOR UNDER WASHINGTON FRANCHISE INVESTMENT PROTECTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS

Mike Maurer  
LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF HOME OWNER'S LAWSUIT BY DIVISION III OF THE WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS

In Applewood Estates Homeowners' Association, et al. v. City of Richland et. al, 166 Wn. App. 161, 269 P.3d 388 (Jan. 26, 2012), Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit filed by neighbors opposing an apartment development in Richland, Washington.

In a written decision placed in the public record on June 16, 2010, the City of Richland (the "City") approved the developer's request to construct apartments on land it was contemplating purchasing within the Badger Mountain Village Planned Unit Development. In reliance on the City's approval, the developer then purchased the land, obtained building permits and began construction. In October 2010, neighbors of the development sued to stop construction, claiming they should have been given direct notice of the City's decision and provided with an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the proposed development before it was approved.

Under Washington's Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA"), legal challenges to land use decisions, such as the City's approval to construct the apartments, must be made within 21 days of the date the land use decision was made. The Court of Appeals found that the neighbors did not timely file their lawsuit, as it was initiated almost 4 months after the challenged land use decision.

Among other things, the neighbors claimed they did not know, nor did they have reason to know, of the City's approval of the proposed apartment complex until well after the 21-day time-to-file deadline had passed. Rejecting this contention, the Court of Appeals held that the neighbors "were not entitled to personal notice, distinct from the notice contemplated by the filing of the public record" by the City on June 16, 2010. For this reason, the Court of Appeals found that that neighbors' lawsuit, filed nearly four months after the City made its determination, was time barred and dismissed the case. The Court held that its decision was consistent with Washington's "strong public policy of supporting administrative finality in land use decisions."

A copy of the Court of Appeal's decision can be accessed by clicking here.

Logo