Selected Court Decisions - Subdivisions

• Nagle v. Snohomish County, 129 Wn. App. 703 (2005)

The county was correct when it rejected the owner's request for innocent purchaser status under RCW 58.17.210, because the finding that the owner had "actual knowledge or notice" that the property was illegally subdivided was supported by the record and controlling law. "Innocent purchaser for value without actual notice" of an illegal subdivision of property is one who had given valuable consideration without express knowledge of the subdivision of the property.

• HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451 (2003)

Cities and counties have authority under state subdivision law to revoke preliminary plat approvals if a local ordinance provides that authority. "[W]hen conditions of approval of a preliminary plat cannot be satisfied or are deliberately violated, remedial action, such as revocation, may be the only remedy."

• City of Seattle v. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d 896 (2003)

A reconfiguration of boundary lines without the creation of additional lots is a boundary line adjustment that does not require approval under state or local subdivision laws. The fact that a new buildable site is created does not prevent application of the boundary line adjustment exemption found at RCW 58.17.040(6).

• Harrison v. Stevens County, 115 Wn. App. 126, review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1031 (2003)

When the mineral rights to real property are reserved or granted to a party other than the holder of the fee title, the title to the surface and the title to the mineral rights are severed and ownership of the surface becomes separate and distinct from ownership of the mineral rights. Thus, the signature of owner of mineral rights in that circumstance was not required on the surface owners' short plat application to subdivide their property.

• Howe v. Douglas County, 146 Wn.2d 183 (2002)

Where local governments must, by law, accept streets, public areas, and other improvements constructed by a private developer, they may limit their liability for harms caused by the private developer. That is precisely what RCW 58.17.165 requires, and impliedly what it authorizes. However, RCW 58.17.165 is limited to certain circumstances: to plat subdivisions subject to a dedication; to damage occasioned to the "adjacent land"; to roads and the associated drainage systems; and to that infrastructure at the time it is dedicated to the local government.

• Westside Business Park v. Pierce County, 100 Wn. App. 599 (2000)

 A developer has a vested right to the storm-water drainage regulations in effect at the time of application for short plat approval even though the application does not reveal the proposed use, as long as the county knows of the intended use and accepts the application as complete.

• Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999)

A preliminary plat application is not "approved" until the local legislative body giving its approval enters a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by RCW 58.17.100. An oral decision is not binding.

Also, a local ordinance generally requiring subdivision developers to improve the streets fronting their proposed developments as a standard regulation of new subdivisions does not absolve the local jurisdiction of its duty to conduct a site-specific inquiry into whether and to what extent a proposed subdivision will impact an adjoining street before it may condition preliminary plat approval of the subdivision on the developer's making specified street improvements.

• Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997)

A developer's submission to the county of a completed short plat application vested in the developer the right to divide and develop the property in the manner disclosed in the short plat application under the land use and zoning laws in effect on the date the application was filed. Unlike other subdivisions, a short plat's vested rights do not divest under RCW 58.17.170 after five years.

• Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kent, 87 Wn. App. 774 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1021 (1998)

When a developer submits its completed preliminary plat application to a county, it becomes entitled to have not only that application, but also its companion PUD application, considered under the county ordinances then in effect on the land, even where the land is annexed by a city in the interim. Vested rights survive annexation of the land by a city.

• Strauss v. City of Sedro-Woolley, 88 Wn. App. 376 (1997), review denied, 135 Wn.2d 1002 (1998)

The owners of a mobile home park sought to convert the park into condominiums without complying with state and local binding site plan regulations. The state court of appeals held that property may not be subdivided to create legal lots of record for condominiums unless the property is subdivided pursuant to RCW 58.17.033 and RCW 58.17.060 or a binding site plan is filed with and approved by the local governing authority.

• Friends of the Law v. King County, 123 Wn.2d 518 (1994)

The requirement of RCW 58.17.195 that a formal finding of fact be made that a proposed subdivision conforms to existing land use controls is applicable to preliminary plat applications.

• Estate of Telfer v. Board of County Comm'rs, 71 Wn. App. 833 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1028 (1994)

 To give substantive meaning to the exemption from subdivision requirements in RCW 58.17.040(3) for "[d]ivisions made by . . . the laws of descent," property held in tenancy in common resulting from intestacy is divisible into separate parcels without complying with the platting requirements. It is not necessary that there be a will dividing the property into separate parcels for this exemption to apply; a division of the property by those taking under the residuary clause may be made without complying with platting requirements.

• Adams v. Thurston County, 70 Wn. App. 471, 855 P.2d 284 (1993)

The inclusion of an environmental impact statement (EIS) as a contingent requirement for a fully completed plat application would violate the intent of the subdivision vesting statute, RCW 58.17.033, and frustrate the purpose of the vesting rule.

• Valley Quality Homes, Inc. v. Bodie, 52 Wn. App. 743 (1988), review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1008 (1989)

Where the property in question, consisting of only one parcel, was classified as a "major subdivision" under the applicable city subdivision ordinance because it was over four acres in area, it was, nevertheless, a "short subdivision" rather than a "subdivision" under statutory definitions. Thus final plat approval of the property prior to sale was not required by statute.

• Halverson v. City of Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985)

RCW 58.17.165 requires a certificate of dedication be signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands subdivided. "Any ownership interest" is broad enough to include ownership of a portion of the land that is not yet a matter of public record because it was acquired through adverse possession. Once the city was put on notice of an adverse possession claim to part of a proposed subdivision, approval of the subdivision plat was improper.

• South Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68 (1984)

The circumstances involved in a plat approval make personal notice of the public hearing on a preliminary plat application to all property owners who may potentially be affected by the council's action impractical. Thus, RCW 58.17.090's provision that notice may be given by publication in a local newspaper is reasonable under the circumstances. RCW 58.17.090 does provide additional protection to those directly affected by a plat by requiring measures to provide special notice to adjacent property owners be developed by the local authorities.

• Island County v. Dillingham Dev. Co., 99 Wn.2d 215 (1983)

Combining lots and portions of lots by changing boundaries to form larger lots does not result in the creation of additional lots and under RCW 58.17.040(5) is exempt from the platting requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW. Also, tracts larger than five acres each, but which were largely covered by water, were exempt from platting requirements under the exemption for five-acre divisions of land.

• Crown Cascade, Inc. v. O'Neal, 100 Wn.2d 256 (1983)

The county was required under RCW 58.17.210 to issue building and development permits to innocent purchasers of lots that were created in violation of state and local subdivision laws.

Return to Top

Selected Court Decisions - Subdivisions

• Nagle v. Snohomish County, 129 Wn. App. 703 (2005)

The county was correct when it rejected the owner's request for innocent purchaser status under RCW 58.17.210, because the finding that the owner had "actual knowledge or notice" that the property was illegally subdivided was supported by the record and controlling law. "Innocent purchaser for value without actual notice" of an illegal subdivision of property is one who had given valuable consideration without express knowledge of the subdivision of the property.

• HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451 (2003)

Cities and counties have authority under state subdivision law to revoke preliminary plat approvals if a local ordinance provides that authority. "[W]hen conditions of approval of a preliminary plat cannot be satisfied or are deliberately violated, remedial action, such as revocation, may be the only remedy."

• City of Seattle v. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d 896 (2003)

A reconfiguration of boundary lines without the creation of additional lots is a boundary line adjustment that does not require approval under state or local subdivision laws. The fact that a new buildable site is created does not prevent application of the boundary line adjustment exemption found at RCW 58.17.040(6).

• Harrison v. Stevens County, 115 Wn. App. 126, review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1031 (2003)

When the mineral rights to real property are reserved or granted to a party other than the holder of the fee title, the title to the surface and the title to the mineral rights are severed and ownership of the surface becomes separate and distinct from ownership of the mineral rights. Thus, the signature of owner of mineral rights in that circumstance was not required on the surface owners' short plat application to subdivide their property.

• Howe v. Douglas County, 146 Wn.2d 183 (2002)

Where local governments must, by law, accept streets, public areas, and other improvements constructed by a private developer, they may limit their liability for harms caused by the private developer. That is precisely what RCW 58.17.165 requires, and impliedly what it authorizes. However, RCW 58.17.165 is limited to certain circumstances: to plat subdivisions subject to a dedication; to damage occasioned to the "adjacent land"; to roads and the associated drainage systems; and to that infrastructure at the time it is dedicated to the local government.

• Westside Business Park v. Pierce County, 100 Wn. App. 599 (2000)

 A developer has a vested right to the storm-water drainage regulations in effect at the time of application for short plat approval even though the application does not reveal the proposed use, as long as the county knows of the intended use and accepts the application as complete.

• Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537 (1999)

A preliminary plat application is not "approved" until the local legislative body giving its approval enters a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by RCW 58.17.100. An oral decision is not binding.

Also, a local ordinance generally requiring subdivision developers to improve the streets fronting their proposed developments as a standard regulation of new subdivisions does not absolve the local jurisdiction of its duty to conduct a site-specific inquiry into whether and to what extent a proposed subdivision will impact an adjoining street before it may condition preliminary plat approval of the subdivision on the developer's making specified street improvements.

• Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997)

A developer's submission to the county of a completed short plat application vested in the developer the right to divide and develop the property in the manner disclosed in the short plat application under the land use and zoning laws in effect on the date the application was filed. Unlike other subdivisions, a short plat's vested rights do not divest under RCW 58.17.170 after five years.

• Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kent, 87 Wn. App. 774 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1021 (1998)

When a developer submits its completed preliminary plat application to a county, it becomes entitled to have not only that application, but also its companion PUD application, considered under the county ordinances then in effect on the land, even where the land is annexed by a city in the interim. Vested rights survive annexation of the land by a city.

• Strauss v. City of Sedro-Woolley, 88 Wn. App. 376 (1997), review denied, 135 Wn.2d 1002 (1998)

The owners of a mobile home park sought to convert the park into condominiums without complying with state and local binding site plan regulations. The state court of appeals held that property may not be subdivided to create legal lots of record for condominiums unless the property is subdivided pursuant to RCW 58.17.033 and RCW 58.17.060 or a binding site plan is filed with and approved by the local governing authority.

• Friends of the Law v. King County, 123 Wn.2d 518 (1994)

The requirement of RCW 58.17.195 that a formal finding of fact be made that a proposed subdivision conforms to existing land use controls is applicable to preliminary plat applications.

• Estate of Telfer v. Board of County Comm'rs, 71 Wn. App. 833 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1028 (1994)

 To give substantive meaning to the exemption from subdivision requirements in RCW 58.17.040(3) for "[d]ivisions made by . . . the laws of descent," property held in tenancy in common resulting from intestacy is divisible into separate parcels without complying with the platting requirements. It is not necessary that there be a will dividing the property into separate parcels for this exemption to apply; a division of the property by those taking under the residuary clause may be made without complying with platting requirements.

• Adams v. Thurston County, 70 Wn. App. 471, 855 P.2d 284 (1993)

The inclusion of an environmental impact statement (EIS) as a contingent requirement for a fully completed plat application would violate the intent of the subdivision vesting statute, RCW 58.17.033, and frustrate the purpose of the vesting rule.

• Valley Quality Homes, Inc. v. Bodie, 52 Wn. App. 743 (1988), review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1008 (1989)

Where the property in question, consisting of only one parcel, was classified as a "major subdivision" under the applicable city subdivision ordinance because it was over four acres in area, it was, nevertheless, a "short subdivision" rather than a "subdivision" under statutory definitions. Thus final plat approval of the property prior to sale was not required by statute.

• Halverson v. City of Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985)

RCW 58.17.165 requires a certificate of dedication be signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands subdivided. "Any ownership interest" is broad enough to include ownership of a portion of the land that is not yet a matter of public record because it was acquired through adverse possession. Once the city was put on notice of an adverse possession claim to part of a proposed subdivision, approval of the subdivision plat was improper.

• South Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68 (1984)

The circumstances involved in a plat approval make personal notice of the public hearing on a preliminary plat application to all property owners who may potentially be affected by the council's action impractical. Thus, RCW 58.17.090's provision that notice may be given by publication in a local newspaper is reasonable under the circumstances. RCW 58.17.090 does provide additional protection to those directly affected by a plat by requiring measures to provide special notice to adjacent property owners be developed by the local authorities.

• Island County v. Dillingham Dev. Co., 99 Wn.2d 215 (1983)

Combining lots and portions of lots by changing boundaries to form larger lots does not result in the creation of additional lots and under RCW 58.17.040(5) is exempt from the platting requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW. Also, tracts larger than five acres each, but which were largely covered by water, were exempt from platting requirements under the exemption for five-acre divisions of land.

• Crown Cascade, Inc. v. O'Neal, 100 Wn.2d 256 (1983)

The county was required under RCW 58.17.210 to issue building and development permits to innocent purchasers of lots that were created in violation of state and local subdivision laws.

Return to Top

Related Resources
MRSC Index – Subdivision and platting