## Facts

- Franklin County asserted a road easement allegedly created through statutory road-establishment proceedings initiated by a 1908 petition and a 1909 county resolution.
- No deed, waiver, or other instrument conveying an easement was recorded in the county auditor’s office under the general recording act (RCW 65.08).
- The road-related documentation was instead “recorded and filed” in the county engineer’s office under a statute requiring the engineer to maintain records concerning county roads (RCW 36.80.040).
- The Ellingsen family later purchased the property with no road easement shown in the recorded chain of title maintained by the county auditor.
- When the County asserted the easement based on engineer’s-office records, the Ellingsens sued to quiet title.
- The trial court granted summary judgment quieting title free of the County’s claimed easement; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether “recording and filing” road-easement conveyance documents in the county engineer’s office provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers when the conveyance is not recorded with the county auditor under RCW 65.08.
2. Whether a county may rely on road-administration records to bind later purchasers to an easement absent compliance with the general recording act.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for the landowners.
- Recording and filing in the county engineer’s office did not provide constructive notice of a road easement to subsequent purchasers.
- Because the County did not record an easement conveyance in the county auditor’s office as required by RCW 65.08, the County’s easement claim could not defeat the purchasers’ title.
- Title was quieted in the Ellingsens free and clear of Franklin County’s asserted road easement.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive notice of interests in real property is governed by the general recording act; to charge later purchasers with notice, a conveyance must be recorded with the county auditor in the county where the land lies.
- A statute directing the county engineer to keep an “office of record” for road matters functions as governmental recordkeeping and does not establish an alternative constructive-notice system for land title.
- Courts will not infer a parallel recording regime that would require purchasers to search multiple offices absent clear legislative direction.
- The risk of an unrecorded or improperly recorded interest falls on the interest holder, not on a purchaser who reasonably relies on the auditor’s title records.

## Conclusion

The court held that county engineer road files do not impart constructive notice of a road easement; absent recording with the county auditor under the recording act, the easement is ineffective against bona fide purchasers, and the landowners’ title is properly quieted.


Ellingsen v. Franklin County, 117 Wash. 2d 24, 810 P.2d 910 (Wash. 1991)