If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Not available

Description: Seattle, Washington civil litigation lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendant seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.


Todd and Christina Glover ("the Glovers") and Canaday own adjacent parcels of real property in a rural area of Snohomish County. Before January 4, 2016, the Glovers owned both parcels. The Glovers have lived on the parcel they currently occupy ("the Glover parcel") since 1981 and inherited the adjacent parcel ("the Canaday parcel") from Christina's mother in 2006.

The Canaday parcel is about 1.7 acres in total. The Glovers have historically used more than half of the Canaday parcel, an approximately one-acre pasture area, primarily for their horses and dogs.

In 2016, the Glovers conveyed their interest in the Canaday parcel to Todd's daughter, Juli Glover. Along with that conveyance, the Glovers leased back the pasture area ("the leased area") from Juli.

The lease, which expires in 2034, provides that the Glovers "shall use and occupy the Premises solely for the purposes of pasture, grazing, and maintaining domestic farm animals, gardening, horseback riding, and other equestrian uses, dog training and grooming, and general recreational uses compatible with the nature and location of the Property." The lease requires the Glovers to be "solely responsible" for maintaining any improvements and provides that the landlord has "no obligation whatsoever to maintain or repair" the leased area. According to the lease, any maintenance or repairs required to keep the leased area in "good order" are the Glovers' obligation to be undertaken at their "sole expense."

Under the lease, the Glovers must provide the landlord with "access to the Premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspections," or repairs, although the landlord is expressly not obligated to perform any repairs. The lease specifies the type and amount of insurance the Glovers must maintain. The lease also provides that the Glovers "shall have and quietly enjoy the Premises" during the term of the lease.

On February 4, 2019, a few years after she acquired the Canaday parcel, Juli conveyed her interest to Canaday. Juli and Canaday were married in April 2019, but within a year, they separated and Juli moved out.

After the relationship between Canaday and Juli ended, disagreements arose between Canaday and the Glovers over their respective rights under the lease. Among other issues, there was conflict about the extent of Canaday's right to access the leased area, his desire to cut trees, and move and replace fencing on the leased area.

On November 4, 2020, through counsel, Canaday delivered an "Amended Thirty Day Notice to Comply with Lease or Vacate Premises" to the Glovers.[1] The notice cited RCW 59.12.030, a provision of the unlawful detainer statute, and alleged that the Glovers were not in compliance with the 2016 lease because they failed to "grant Landlord access as provided in the Lease to replace the fence, and add a fence to SW side of property, and remove dangerous trees." The notice also alleged noncompliance with the lease based on the Glovers' alleged failure to insure the premises as required by the lease, "[e]ncroachment onto Landlord's adjacent property," "[i]nterference with Landlord's use and enjoyment" of his property, and "[f]ailure to provide proper notice."

On November 19, 2020, the Glovers filed a complaint against Canaday for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages. The Glovers alleged that, beginning in December 2019, Canaday began to assert a right to: 1) inspect the leased area "whenever he wished to," 2) cut down trees on the leased area that appeared to be healthy, 3) install fencing on a portion of the leased area where no fencing currently exists, and 4) replace existing fencing with "barb wire fencing." The Glovers claimed that following Canaday's issuance of the notice to comply or vacate, they had "substantial fear" that Canaday would seek to terminate the lease and begin unlawful detainer proceedings against them. The Glovers asked the court to "construe the lease and hold that there exists no factual or legal basis to support Defendant Canaday's Amended Notice." The Glovers also asserted that Canaday interfered with their right to quiet enjoyment of the leasehold by asserting rights under the lease without legal or factual basis. They asked the court to enjoin Canaday from further interference with their right to quiet enjoyment.

In answer to the complaint, Canaday alleged that the Glovers breached the terms of the lease by 1) refusing to allow him access to the leased area unless they were present, 2) refusing to allow him to replace fencing even though a survey showed that the existing fence encroaches on his property, 3) refusing to allow him to complete fencing and install a gate between the two parcels, 4) refusing to allow him to prune or remove "dangerous" trees, and 5) refusing to maintain adequate insurance coverage.


Canaday asserted that the Glovers were unlawfully detaining the premises because they failed to cure their noncompliance with the lease or vacate following receipt of his amended notice and sought a writ of restitution. Besides terminating the lease, Canaday requested an award of damages based on the Glovers' alleged breaches of the lease.

In March 2021, Canaday delivered to the Glovers a second 30-day notice to comply or vacate. Canaday alleged that by "piling" sawdust along the fence line, the Glovers breached the lease and committed "waste."

The Glovers filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Canaday's claim for unlawful detainer. After considering the briefing, supporting declarations, and argument, the trial court granted the motion. The order granting partial summary judgment also awarded attorney fees to the Glovers, in an amount to be determined at trial.

The Glovers, Canaday, Juli, and two expert witnesses later testified at a two-day bench trial on the remaining issues. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court resolved several issues identified by the parties in their joint pretrial conference summary.

The trial court found that the Glovers "did not strictly comply" with the lease's provision allowing Canaday reasonable access to the leased area. At the same time, the court concluded that the Glovers' breach was not "material" and that there was no basis to terminate the lease. On the other hand, the court found that Canaday violated the covenant of quiet enjoyment under the lease by demanding that the Glovers adjust their insurance coverage, proposing to remove trees that posed little to no danger, and proposing to replace existing fencing with material not suitable for horses. The court determined that the neither party was entitled to damages because of the lack of specific evidence to support the claims for damages.

To resolve the Glovers' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, the court determined that two-hour visits up to six times per year amounts to "reasonable" access under the lease. The court permanently enjoined Canaday from future interference with the Glovers' right to quiet enjoyment and their right to use the leased area in accordance with the purpose of the lease. The court also found that the Glovers were the "prevailing party" for purposes of the lease's attorney fee provision and awarded fees and costs to the Glovers. Canaday appeals.
Glover v. Canaday (Wash. App. 2022)

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: