You can file a response to an anti-harassment order with the court; most people don't, but I did, and here's what I said in response to her complaint:
"Ms. Shelton uses the county easement to cross over my land
to reach hers. Ms. Shelton has no right
to post no trespassing signs on my property or the county right of way per
SCC 13.60.050(5)
and must maintain the county right of way she uses to access her property per
SCC13.60.050(9).
The fence between our two properties has existed in its
current location for decades, and I believe that I own that fence
outright. Ms Shelton does not have any
information on property lines or corners and refuses to have her land surveyed
or to walk the property lines with me; with survey in hand and corners staked
and marked, I have a very good idea of where the property lines are. Ms. Shelton apparently agrees with my survey
as she references it in her pleadings.
In the 6 months that I have been in this dispute with Ms.
Shelton the best information I have is that she has made over 100 complaints,
via telephone, email, forms filled out in person and calls to 911. These complaints have been made various
agencies, causing over 30 personal visits to my house and property by these
agencies usually in groups of 2 to 6 staffers each visit. Responding agencies include the Snohomish
County Sheriff, the Snohomish County health department, the Snohomish county
Animal Control, The Washington State Veterinarian and the Washington State Department
of Ecology and others. No citations,
notice and order or any other enforcement action has resulted from any of these
visits, but I have spent more than 180 hours dealing with requests for
inspection and disclosure as each of these agencies investigated the
complaints.
Ms. Shelton has complained that my animals had gotten out on
many occasions to animal control, then complained to the sheriff that I was trespassing
as I maintained or constructed fences in an effort to contain the animals, and
on at least one occasion refused to return my livestock until I called the
sheriff and had him advise her that I would press theft charges if she did not.
It is a matter of common sense that when livestock are
involved, no matter how good your fence or containment is there is always the
possibility that it will escape; it is a fact of rural life on agriculturally
zoned land and not an unusual or unexpected hazard. Ms. Sheltons own animals have left her
property, and in one case reportedly killed a neighbors dog and caused hundreds
of dollars of damage which Ms. Strawder paid to repair.
I cannot trespass on my own land. I cannot be charged with destroying my own
fence. It is not harassment to object to
Ms. Shelton posting signs on my property or removing those signs from my
property. Having a disagreement about a
boundary line, the ownership of a fence, or the ability to traverse my own
property or opened right of way does not constitute harassment, and none of
those issues will be solved but making this temporary order permanent. It will take a bad situation and make it
worse.
Ms
Shelton has consulted a private attorney and has the ability to resolve these
issues via other means, such as her own survey, but has chosen courses of
action to increase the conflict in any way what she can, all the while claiming
that she is the victim, on fixed income, and helpless, and is using this and
other forms of civil process or complaint in what appears to be a concerted
course of conduct designed not to resolve this conflict but to inflame it and
harm me.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2014
Statement of Bruce King
"I purchased the property commonly known as 28611 139th
avenue NE, closing on that purchase in approximately May of 2013. I purchased this property from Union Bank out
of foreclosure. Union bank had received
this property when the lender in first position, Frontier Bank, was closed by
the FDIC.
At time of
foreclosure, this property was owned by Gary Strawder, the ex-husband of Ms.
Shelton, and prior to that both the property that she resides in now, common
address 28828 139th avenue NE and this property, 28611 139th avenue were both
owned by the marital community of Dale Shelton and Gary Strawder. Ms. Shelton has told me in the past that she
was divorced in 2009, but at time of closing in 2013, Ms. Shelton had various
belongings and animals on this property, and the first contact between myself
and Ms. Shelton was when I contacted her and asked her if she wanted the items and
animals she had here, and how much time she wanted to remove them. At time of closing I had title to the
property and everything on it, and this contact was a common courtesy not
required by law.
We agreed on two weeks, and she removed a variety of items
and animals. Another two weeks after
that she returned and said that she had left potting soils and materials and
asked if she could take cuttings from this property, and I allowed her to do so.
As part of my purchase of this property I commissioned and
duly registered a survey of the boundaries of the property in contemplation of
fencing. This survey work cost me $7,000.
Fencing is expensive and I wanted to
place the fence at the proper locations so that I wouldn't have to move the
fence or have disputes about property lines in the future. It has been my experience when purchasing
agricultural land that fences are often not built on property lines and that
there are often disagreements about where boundaries are; a survey usually
quickly resolves those issues, or at least gives me a pretty concise view of
any issues. The existing fences on my property
were in poor condition when I closed this purchase. My intention was to fence along the east side
of the county right of way, and to place gates in either end of the fence, and
a gate in the center. This would allow
me to avoid having to move the fence in the event of some activity in the right
of way and to plant to the edge of my fields.
I figured that since the county right of way was platted I might as well
use that area for access.
In addition, having gates allows me to retrieve animals that
get out more quickly, allowing me to minimize any disruption caused. It also allows the neighbors the ability to
retrieve their livestock in the event that theirs wanders. The fenceline between Ms. Sheltons and the
Druchinins property is more than 1/3rd of a mile long.
I contacted Ms. Shelton in May, and I asked her for the keys
to gates that she had erected over the right of way. I didn't mind her putting the gates up, but I
wanted to be able to pass up and down the right of way without impediment when
I needed to. I explained my fencing plan
to her, and told her that we would be completed in a couple of weeks.
She objected to this, and said that I didn't have the right
to use the right of way as I described, and after listening carefully, I told
Ms. Shelton that I didn't agree with her, but could she provide some sort of
backup that the right of way couldn't be used?
Ms. Shelton called the county, and found Jan Newman, who is
employed with the title of "right of way investigator III", at 425-388-3488,
x 2290. I called Ms. Newman, and in a
discussion with Ms. Newman, she informed me that the right of way on 139th was
formed by taking 20 feet of the parcels on either side, and that it was an
easement, and not deeded county land.
She further said that the portions of that right of way that were
unopened could be used by the landowners on either side for any purpose that
they chose, including fencing, gating and any other use, up to and including the
exclusive use and prevention of public access.
This with the understanding that if the county ever were to want to open
the right of way that anything placed there might have to be removed at the
landowners expense, Ms Newname stated that opening the right of way was
unlikely to happen.
I was surprised by this; it was different than my
understanding of right of way. I called
Ms. Shelton back, told her that I agreed with her that the property owners on
either side could use the right of way or prevent access, and that having
learned that, I didn't need the keys to her gates. I modified my fencing plan to meet this new
understanding. I would fence along the
center of the right of way on areas of the right of way that had not been
opened by the county or by permit, and in other areas I would fence inside of
the existing fences, reasoning that I would not narrow or interfere with the
existing decades-old fencing but I did need to construct fencing capable of
retaining animals. Over the course of
the next 7 months I did that.
I wrote a letter after our phone conversation summarizing
our conversation, dated 7-16-2013 and mailed Ms Shelton a copy. I wrote that letter because I wanted to have a
record of what was said and have it be in writing. My experience in dealing with Ms. Shelton is
that she and I had different opinions on what was said in our conversations,
sometimes only hours after they had occurred.
In that letter I requested that any further conversation she had with me
regarding the fences be in writing.
My survey was
performed by River City Land Services.
This survey was completed on 2-25-13, prior to close, and this survey is
my primary source of information on where boundaries and easements are
located. I am not aware of any survey or
authority that Ms. Shelton has on her property lines or corners, and in fact,
she and I have no agreement on where our property lines are. I rely on my survey and staked corners. I don't know what she relies on.
My property, 28611 139th is comprised of 4 tax parcels
totalling 69.7 acres. Two of these tax
parcels, #s 32061600400400 and 32061600400300, have on their west side a county
right-of-way. 139th avenue NE is built
on this right-of-way, and the right-of-way continues north until it intersects
the north fork of the stilliguamish river.
Ms. Sheltons property is one parcel, #32061600300800,
approximately 10 acres, and is located west of the county right of way,
abutting it.
The County right of way is formed by taking 20 feet from
either side of the section line in this area.
Each property owner along this right-of-way maintains title to the land
underneath this right of way; it is not deeded county land. In a practical sense, that right of ownership
is meaningless for this easement - since this right-of-way eventually touches
water, the north fork of the Stilliguamish, the county is prohibited from
vacating that land by the provisions of RCW 36.87.130, and I quote:
RCW 36.87.130
Vacation of roads abutting bodies
of water prohibited unless for public purposes or industrial use.
|
|
No county shall vacate a county road or part thereof which abuts
on a body of salt or freshwater unless the purpose of the vacation is to enable
any public authority to acquire the vacated property for port purposes, boat
moorage or launching sites, or for park, viewpoint, recreational, educational
or other public purposes, or unless the property is zoned for industrial uses.
Opened county road segments can not be blocked or reserved
for exclusive use except by permit, and generally for limited periods of time,
typically by county permit and subject to various restrictions.
On the east side of the centerline of this easement, the
right-of-way is owned by the property owner to the east. On the west side by the property owner to the
west. The 139th easement runs
north-south.
In front of my house there is a sign that reads "End of
county road", which indicates that it is the end of the maintained county
road. Ms. Shelton uses a portion of that
easement north of that sign to access her property. The section of the county road south of that
sign is considered "opened right of way" by virtue of being an
improved county road.
Ms. Sheltons property does not contact the maintained portion
of the county road. The distance between
the "end of county road" sign and Ms. Sheltons property is hundreds
of feet. The west side of this segment
of the easement is owned by Vasily Druchinin, the property owner to the west. The east side is owned by Myself, until we
reach Ms. Sheltons parcel. There the
ownership of the west side of the right of way is Ms. Shelton, and the east side
is myself, and that ownership pattern continues until the right of way intersects
the North Fork of the Stilliguamish river.
That section of Ms. Sheltons driveway north of the "end
of county road sign" meanders and uses a portion of both Mr. Druchinins land
and my own land. The county electrical
and telephone poles were placed in random positions along this driveway, and in
order to use this any traveler has to avoid the telephone poles and guy wires
used to secure them. No portion of Ms.
Sheltons access along this path is solely on Mr. Druchinins or my own
property.
Ms. Shelton crosses the Druchinin land and my own land via a
"trail permit", a D4 level permit, issued by the county. This permit allows the opening of otherwise
unopened county right-of-way for use in accessing parcels that have no other
access available. This permit is issued
conditional to the landowner improving the right-of-way to various county
standards, usually by grading or adding gravel or ditches or other amenities.
Trail permits are regulated by SCC title 13, roads and
bridges. A trail permit opens the right
of way to the general public and is non-exclusive to the permit holder. I quote:
SCC 13.60.050 (5)
The issuance of a type
D3 or D4 permit does not diminish the public ownership of the right-of-way or
grant any exclusive privileges to the permitee.
No permitee using county right-of-way pursuant to a type D3 or D4 permit
will prevent or restrict simultaneous use of the right-of-way by the general
public, except where the prevention or restriction of public use is expressly
approved by the engineer because the permittee's use creates a hazard to the
public
Ms Shelton has repeatedly stated to me that she is a holder
of a trail permit, both in person and via her attorney Mr. Duskin, and Mr.
Duskin has provided copies of documents to me that he purports to support this
view but has yet to produce the permit to me.
I haven't seen this permit but i'm willing to believe that
it does exist. With this permit, Ms.
Shelton has the right to cross my and Mr. Druchinins land to access her property
along the county right-of-way, but has no right to restrict myself, Mr.
Druchinin or any member of the general public who wishes to from using that
opened right of way for the entire length of the opened area, from the
"end of county road" sign all the way up to the end of the improved
sectin, where my gate is installed. She
references my gate as "...a 16' gate directly accross from the entrance to
my home" in her statement in support of this order. Ms. Shelton also has the responsibility of
improving and maintaining that access road in the right of way per SCC 13.60.050(9)
as long as she holds that permit. Ms.
Shelton has no right to restrict access to this right-of-way due to concerns
about damage to the roadway, but must instead maintain it at her expense no
matter who causes wear-and-tear due to normal use. Tractors and agricultural access uses are
normal uses in this zoning. This is
explicitly discussed in the statute governing this permit.
She does not have the right to post no trespassing signs or
restrict access to anyone from the "end of county road" sign to her property
line. That segment of the right have way
has been "opened" by this permit. She also does not have my permission to post
signs or restrict access on my property, on the east side of the right of
way. In addition, I have the permission
of Mr. Druchinin to cross or traverse the west side of the right of way.
I have written 2 letters and asked her in
person 3 times in the last 6 months to remove the signs and stop telling people
that she will press trespass charges and after six months finally removed the
signs in her presence, walked to her property line and said "You can't
post the signs where you had them. but
if you want to post signs, this is where they go" and indicated the
property line to her. Two hours later two sheriffs deputies were at my door and
explained that Ms. Shelton had asked them to press criminal trespass charges or
property destruction against me. I
explained what I had done, showed them my stamped survey copy that shows the
fence and property lines, and two hours later dale was tacking the signs back
up where she had placed them before.
It was this latest
incident that she recounts in her statement supporting this order.
I asked the deputies that night how many times Ms. Shelton
had called, and they shrugged and told me that they had honestly lost
count. I have submitted public
disclosure requests for the 911 call recordings, incident numbers, incident
reports and other information from all of the responding agencies and am
waiting for the response now. My best
information is that the total number of complaints entered is in excess of 100,
and may be as high as 500, somewhere between one and three calls per day, every
day, for 6 months.
The complaints don't seem to serve a constructive
purpose. An example is the pig incident
that she refers to in her statement. "His pig was in my pasture Oct 11th
looking for a place to have babies.
Animal control and the sheriff wouldn't help or respond, so my
grandaughter and I had to herd the pig back to bruces [property]"
On the day this incident happened I was working on the fence
about 200' from her front door, in sight of her sitting on her front
porch. I received a call from Officer
Davis of the Snohomish County Animal control, informing me that he had recieved
a complaint from Ms. Shelton and that Ms. Shelton had asked him to confiscate
my pig. He asked Ms. Shelton to call me,
and she refused, instead insisting that my pig get confiscated and
transported. He told me where the pig
was, and I said that I would go get the pig.
I set down my tools, walked up the county right of way, and knocked on
her front door. I then stepped back off
her front porch,
and got my cell phone out to record the interaction that followed. I didn't want any controversy about what was
said. I told her that I understood that
she'd called to have a pig removed from her property, and I was there to do
it. She told me I was trespassing, and
to get off her property. I said that I
didn't want to be there, but I was there to remove the pig. Would she let me get my pig? No.
Get off my property, you're trespassing.
Just to make sure I had heard her right, I asked "so you're saying
you will not allow me to get my pig?" and she agreed, and I turned and
left her property.
I called officer Davis back, who advised me to call the
Responding deputy. The deputy advised me
that I could press theft charges if I wished under RCW 9A.56.083 - a class C
felony. I declined, stating that I was
just interested in getting my pig back, and asked the deputy to talk to Ms.
Shelton. That deputy told Ms. Shelton
that he strongly advised her to return my pig.
At that point she agreed to herd the pig to the property line and I
retrieved it.
Whatever issue Ms. Shelton had wasn't with the pig being on
her property; given the opportunity to remove the pig, she refused, instead
preferring to escalate the situation into a confrontation with me, and causing
both the animal control and the county sheriff to have to respond to resolve this
issue. When the pig returned to Ms. Sheltons pasture to have her piglets, she
kept the pig on her property for several days and I had to schedule a time with
both her and Officer Davis to retrieve the pig and her piglets.
Ms. Shelton complains that my animals are out. She complains when I construct or maintain
fences to contain the animals. She
complains that I don't feed my animals.
She complains that I feed my animals incorrectly. She complains my animals don't have
water. She complains that I am keeping
animals in a wetland. In fact the volume
of complaints is so large that at this point I'm pretty sure that I can do nothing
at all to satisfy this woman, and so I have given up trying to appease
her.
She even complains when I go to get my animals when they're
out; in her complaint she states that I was trespassing when I went to retrieve
cows that were out. What would Ms.
Shelton have me do instead? Does she
propose that if an animal ever gets out that I make no attempt to retrieve
it? Would the same rules apply to her
livestock in the event that they got out?
Ms Shelton has made the bulk of those complaints to
agencies, but she has also parked her car in my driveway and honked her horn
until I came out of the house to see what was going on. She's written me letters, she's confronted me
in person, she's hired an attorney and had him call and write me.
She has threatened
to press trespass charges on me, or on my employees when they are working on my
land, or on fences I own and has interfered with my farming practices and
occupation.
This no-contact order has prevented me from completing a
segment of fence, has prevented me from tilling approximately 5 acres of land
for 2 weeks despite the need to plant on a tight schedule to give the crops the
best chance of success. This course of
conduct by Ms. Shelton has been extremely annoying to me. I believe that there is harassment going on
here, but it's not Ms. Shelton who is being harassed.
Ms Shelton claims ownership of the fence that divides our
two properties, and uses that claim of ownership to assert that I have "destroyed
her pasture fence" in her statement.
That fence starts at a point near the "end of county road"
sign, on my property, on the east side of the county road easement, runs 400'
or so along my property before getting to the corner of Ms. Sheltons land, and
then continues another 1100' to near the bank of the Stilliguamish river. She has claimed that the fence was
constructed by her in 2009, from materials she purchased.
I have aerial photos of that fence from every
year back at least to 1990, and previous owners of this farm state that the
fence was first constructed in either 1965 or 1968, accounts vary. She has asserted that the fence is the
"boundary fence", and i've offered to do a boundary line agreement to
make that fence the legal boundary -- and she's refused. Only after examining my survey did she notice
that the fence wasn't on the property line, but approximately 17' west of the
center of the county right of way at its northern extent, and this has made her
very unhappy.
This fence was constructed decades before either she or I
owned these properties, and probably for the benefit of my property. My property has been a commercial dairy since
1935 and has had hundreds of cows on it for most of that time. Since there were more animals and sections of
the fence were constructed to control land that she does not own, and the fence
shows up on historical photos in its present position, I believe that it's
probably my fence. She may have
constructed fencing in 2009 somewhere, but if anything was done it was probably
to renovate the existing fence - removing barbed wire and replacing it with
field fence, for instance. The current
fence and historical fence show identical curvature and placement between
existing trees. A newly constructed
fence would probably have been done on the property line, or at least
straight. "
end of Declaration by Bruce King
Posts
