From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vintage Constr. v. City of Bothell

The Supreme Court of Washington. En Banc
Jul 30, 1998
135 Wn. 2d 833 (Wash. 1998)

Summary

adopting this court's opinion

Summary of this case from United Development Corp. v. City of Mill Creek

Opinion

No. 64773-9.

Argued October 14, 1997.

Decided July 30, 1998.

Appeal from the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-2-26603-2, Harriett M. Cody, J., on February 22, 1995.

Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C., by Wayne D. Tanaka, for petitioner.

Graham Dunn, by Larry J. Smith and Peter S. McCormick, for respondent.

Brent D. Boger, John M. Groen, and Robin L. Rivett on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.


A developer of a subdivision, Vintage Construction Company, Inc., commenced and prosecuted this action against the City of Bothell to recover $56,400 in park fees plus interest. On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court dismissed the action, prompting Vintage to appeal to the Court of Appeals which not only reversed the dismissal but remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Vintage. See Vintage Constr. Co. v. City of Bothell, 83 Wn. App. 605, 922 P.2d 828 (1996). We subsequently granted Bothell's Petition for Review, 131 Wn.2d 1008, 932 P.2d 1256 (1997), and affirm the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth in the articulate and scholarly opinion of Judge Becker which we herewith incorporate and adopt as our own.

Without attempting to restate that opinion here, we note for reference this case involves the claimed refund of a $400 per lot fee assessed against the developer as a condition precedent to subdivision approval. This fee is characterized by the City of Bothell as a fee in lieu of dedication. Relying upon Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994) which involved almost identical facts, as well as Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994) which articulates the criteria against which such a fee must be judged under former RCW 82.02.020, we conclude the Court of Appeals was clearly correct in its analysis and remand to the trial court with direction that summary judgment be entered for Vintage Construction Company, awarding Vintage its costs on appeal.

DURHAM, C.J., and DOLLIVER, SMITH, GUY, JOHNSON, MADSEN, ALEXANDER, and TALMADGE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vintage Constr. v. City of Bothell

The Supreme Court of Washington. En Banc
Jul 30, 1998
135 Wn. 2d 833 (Wash. 1998)

adopting this court's opinion

Summary of this case from United Development Corp. v. City of Mill Creek
Case details for

Vintage Constr. v. City of Bothell

Case Details

Full title:VINTAGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent , v. THE CITY OF BOTHELL…

Court:The Supreme Court of Washington. En Banc

Date published: Jul 30, 1998

Citations

135 Wn. 2d 833 (Wash. 1998)
135 Wash. 2d 833
959 P.2d 1090

Citing Cases

Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas

The open space condition here is comparable to conditions in a number of cases analyzed under RCW 82.02.020.…

United Development Corp. v. City of Mill Creek

Here, however, value of land is not the question, and no site-specific determination is required. 83 wn. App.…