Litz v. Pierce County

Citations: 44 Wash. App. 674; 723 P.2d 475Docket: No. 8002-8-II

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; August 1, 1986; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Reed, J. Edward and Doris Litz appeal the summary judgment that dismissed their claim against Pierce County for damages resulting from a reduction in ferry service to Ketron Island. The case stems from a 1961 deed from Ketron Island Enterprises, Inc. to Pierce County, which stipulated the County would provide efficient ferry service in exchange for land designated as a ferry landing. The Litzes purchased property on Ketron Island in 1961 and built a permanent home in 1969, relying on continued ferry service. Prior to November 1981, the ferry schedule included multiple daily trips, but after that date, the County significantly limited the service to just two trips per day due to structural issues with the ferry landing. Although the County authorized temporary repairs, the Litzes experienced difficulties commuting and eventually moved to Tacoma, leading them to list their Ketron Island property for sale, which lost value due to the limited ferry service. In March 1983, they sought $250,000 in damages, claiming "de facto taking and inverse condemnation" due to the impaired access to their property, which they argued constituted a vested property right requiring compensation under the state constitution. They likened their ferry access to an abutting property owner's access to a public highway, citing case law that supports compensation for substantial impairment of access. However, Pierce County successfully obtained summary judgment against their claims.

The issue at hand involves the rights of access related to a ferry route and the authority of a county government to set ferry schedules. It is a unique case with no direct precedent in any jurisdiction. The Litzes, though not abutting landowners in the traditional sense, are considered 'abutting' due to their status as island landowners with limited access to the mainland. While public ferries have been deemed extensions of public highways in prior cases, the nature of ferry access differs significantly from that of roads. The Litzes have not lost access to the ferry itself; instead, they are contesting their right to a specific ferry schedule. The document asserts that such a right does not constitute a property right that merits judicial protection, as ferry schedules do not attach to land and cannot be considered property rights that could be taken or damaged. Recognizing a property right in ferry schedules could hinder government efficiency in providing ferry services. Furthermore, the ruling does not leave island residents without recourse for grievances regarding ferry service changes; they may still seek remedies for perceived unfair treatment.

Parties may object to a decision-making authority regarding a new schedule prior to its adoption and seek judicial review if a governmental authority is perceived to have acted arbitrarily in reducing service levels. They also have the option to engage in the political process to elect more responsive officials. Despite recognizing that a reduction in ferry service affects individuals' access to the mainland, a claim for inverse condemnation cannot be established without a legal basis. A ferry schedule cannot cater to the specific desires of individual landowners, and the county has the discretion to determine service levels, which must align with public interest and fiscal capabilities. Public hearings were held to gather input before the ordinance change, but this does not constrain the county's decision-making authority. Judicial review of legislative authority is limited to cases of manifest abuse of discretion. The Litzes challenge the damages from the county's actions rather than the authority itself. Their second claim for damages involves equitable estoppel, which applies when one party reasonably relies on another's assurances to their detriment. While this doctrine can be invoked against the state or its subdivisions to prevent injustice, its application against local government is disfavored and requires clear, convincing evidence.

Equitable estoppel requires three elements: (1) an admission or act by one party that contradicts a later claim; (2) reliance by the other party on that admission or act; and (3) injury to the relying party from allowing the first party to contradict their previous stance. Additionally, reliance must be reasonable. The Litzes contend that factual issues exist regarding their equitable estoppel claim. If evidence suggests a genuine issue of material fact favoring the nonmoving party, summary judgment should be denied. 

The County disputes the Litzes' claim, arguing they failed to demonstrate reasonable reliance and that estoppel would hinder the County's governmental functions. The Litzes’ basis for their claim includes the County's acceptance of a ferry landing deed, eight years of ferry service before their home construction, and more than 12 years of service after moving to Ketron Island. However, they lacked evidence of a guaranteed level of service and did not mitigate risks associated with relocating to a private island. The County's acceptance of the deed implied intent to provide ferry service but did not guarantee its extent.

Granting the Litzes’ estoppel claim could unduly burden Pierce County, potentially forcing it to maintain a costly ferry schedule or pay damages equivalent to repair costs. Consequently, the Litzes did not establish a genuine issue of fact concerning their equitable estoppel claim, affirming the summary judgment. 

The document also notes that there is no record of an agreement with KIE, and the deed does not impose restrictions. Additionally, it clarifies that the stop at Ketron was added to existing ferry services and mentions the constitutional requirement for just compensation when private property is taken for public use, highlighting that Ketron Island lacks public roads and that the ferry landing is the only public land. Finally, while counties are not mandated to consult ferry users before service changes, Pierce County held a public hearing to gather user feedback.

In Woody v. Port of Seattle, the court addressed a challenge to the Port's decision to abandon a ferry route, emphasizing that the public can review and influence the Port's operations through elections or legislative action. The court noted that specific circumstances might justify claims for damages if assurances of service levels had been provided to affected parties, such as the Litzes. The case referenced Wylde v. Seattle, which highlighted the conflicting public interests in maintaining railway services versus the financial viability of municipal utilities. The court stressed the importance of the city council's decisions as reflective of the public interest. However, the context of the case did not involve claims for breach of contract regarding ferry services. The Litzes' claims were limited to constitutional 'taking' and equitable estoppel related to service schedules. In cases involving federal questions, the evidentiary standard for summary judgment follows the substantive standard applicable at trial. Washington courts align with federal interpretations, suggesting that the Litzes would need to present 'clear, cogent, and convincing evidence' to establish a prima facie case for equitable estoppel to overcome a summary judgment motion.