Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

VINTAGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF BOTHELL, Petitioner.

SANDERS, J.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

VINTAGE CONSTR. v. CITY OF BOTHELL
(Jul 30, 1998)