Court weighs whether hearing examiner must decide property ownership in Postema v. Snohomish County

At oral argument in Postema v. Snohomish County, counsel debated whether a county hearing examiner must resolve who owns a narrow 30-foot strip of land or may confine its inquiry to whether the countyright of way there has been "opened," which determines permit requirements.

Richard Stevens, attorney for the appellant, told the court the core issue is "who's going to decide the facts about ownership of the property?" He argued superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over title and possession claims and said factual findings by the hearing examiner could prejudice later judicial review if the administrative record is adverse.

Brian Dorsey, deputy prosecuting attorney for Snohomish County, said the case instead concerns whether appellants are entitled to a writ of prohibition that would prevent the hearing examiner from proceeding. "The only thing that is relevant is this issue of whether the right of way is opened or unopened," Dorsey said, arguing the county code defines right of way to include any county interest (fee or easement) and that the permitting rules apply regardless of whether the county holds fee title.

Dorsey cited prior court rulings and the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), saying administrative proceedings followed by de novo review in superior court provide the statutory route for resolving land-use disputes. He noted a superior-court LUPA review can include supplementation of the administrative record and observed that appellants could pursue a quiet-title action separately.

The panel questioned whether a contiguous right-of-way crossing multiple parcels can be "opened" as to some parcels and remain "unopened" as to others; Stevens said the county's improvements and maintenance determine opened status parcel by parcel. Counsel acknowledged limited direct authority on that narrow point and that the 1975 transfers at issue involved multiple adjacent easements.

Stevens urged the court to protect superior-court jurisdiction over underlying title questions because factual determinations, he argued, are not reviewed de novo under LUPA and could leave appellants at a disadvantage. Dorsey replied that even if the hearing examiner reached a title issue, that determination would be subject to de novo legal review and would not divest the superior court of the ability to resolve title later.

The court recessed after argument; no ruling was announced from the bench at the conclusion of the morning docket.