## Facts

- Related families jointly owned several tracts in Spokane County, Washington, then divided the property in the early 1970s.
- As part of the division, the Kobzas’ parents conveyed tracts to the Tripps by quitclaim deed while retaining a recorded easement over the Tripps’ lots.
- In 1972, the Kobza parents allowed the Tripps to build a fence that blocked the easement.
- In the mid-1980s, after the parents’ divorce, the parents quitclaimed their interests in certain tracts to their three children (the Kobzas).
- In 1994, the Kobzas agreed to sell their property for $35,000 and promised the buyers a usable easement.
- Before closing, the Tripps told the prospective buyers the easement was “null and void,” asserting it had been extinguished by abandonment and adverse possession; the buyers withdrew.
- The Kobzas sued to quiet title to the easement, sought an injunction against interference, and sought damages for the failed $35,000 sale.

## Issues

1. Whether a quiet title and injunction pleading and corresponding findings supported any legally cognizable basis to award $35,000 in damages for a lost sale.
2. Whether damages for consequential economic loss are available in a quiet title action absent a separately pleaded and proved tort or contract claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment quieting title to the easement in the Kobzas and affirmed injunctive relief preventing interference.
- The court reversed the $35,000 damages award.
- The court held the complaint did not plead, and the trial court’s findings and conclusions did not establish, an independent cause of action that would support damages.

## Legal Principles

- A quiet title action is equitable and is used to compel adverse claimants to submit their claimed interest to judicial determination.
- Because quiet title is equitable, damages are not ordinarily available as relief in such an action.
- Consequential damages (such as a lost sale) require a properly pleaded and proved independent legal theory (e.g., a recognized tort or contract claim); a quiet title claim alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court limited relief to quieting title to the easement and enjoining interference, reversing the award of lost-sale damages because the plaintiffs did not plead or prove a separate legal claim authorizing monetary recovery in a quiet title action.


Kobza v. Tripp, 18 P.3d 621 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)