IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WALLINGFORD COMMUNITY COUNCIL, a Washington Nonprofit Corporation, vs. Plaintiff, THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a Municipal Corporation, J. DAN FIORITO, JR. and BARBARA FIORITO, husband and wife, BUILDING ACCOUNT LLC, a Washington limited liability company, J D F J CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, ROBERT REID and JEAN REID, husband and wife, JAMES REID and JANE DOE REID, husband and wife, and THE ROBERT & JEAN REID FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC, a Washington limited liability company Defendant(s). FOR THE COUNTY OF KING NO SEA AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT The plaintiff, through its attorney, by way of complaint against the defendants alleges as follows: 1 Parties 1.1 The Wallingford Community Council (WCC) is a Washington nonprofit corporation in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington. The WCC was incorporated in, and it and many of its members are interested in and directly affected this action. 1. The WCC has standing to bring this action in its own right, and as a taxpayers lawsuit. 1. The defendant City of Seattle is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Washington. AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 1 () -0 Fax: () -1

2 The defendants J. Dan Fiorito, Jr. and Barbara Fiorito are husband and wife constituting a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and reside in King County, Washington. 1. The defendants Robert G. Reid and Jean A. Reid are husband and wife constituting a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and reside in King County, Washington. 1. The defendants James Reid and Jane Doe Reid, are husband and wife constituting a marital community under the laws of the State of Washington and reside in King County, Washington. 1. Building Account LLC, (aka Fiorito Building Account LLC) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. 1. J D F J Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. 1. The Robert & Jean Reid Family Investments LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. 1. The defendants J. Dan Fiorito, Jr. and Barbara Fiorito, the Building Account LLC (aka Fiorito Building Account LLC), and J D F J Corporation are hereafter jointly referred to as the Fioritos. 1. The defendants Robert G. Reid and Jean A. Reid, James Reid and Jane Doe Reid, and The Robert & Jean Reid Family Investments L.L.C. are hereafter jointly referred to as the Reids. Real Property.1 This action concerns certain real property (Disputed Property) located in Seattle, King County, Washington, more particularly described as: All that portion of 1 st Avenue Northeast, as platted between blocks thirty-seven and thirty-six ( and ) Lake Union Shore Lands; and all that portion of 1 st Avenue Northeast as condemned by Ordinance No. and lying southeasterly of the southeasterly margin of Northlake Avenue, as established by Ordinance No. ; same being all that portion of said 1 st Avenue Northeast vacated by Ordinance No.. (See Exhibit A for general illustration of location of property and Exhibit B for plat map) AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - () -0 Fax: () -1

3 . The Disputed Property is also known as the disputed portion of 1 st Avenue NE in Seattle, Washington.. The defendant City of Seattle has an ownership interest in the Disputed Property as described below.. The defendants J. Dan Fiorito, Jr. and Barbara Fiorito, Robert G. Reid and Jean A. Reid, James Reid and Jane Doe Reid, the Building Account LLC (aka Fiorito Building Account LLC), J D F J Corporation, and The Robert & Jean Reid Family Investments LLC claim to have, or appear of record to have, an ownership interested in the Disputed Property.. Plaintiff reserves the right to add or delete parties as the actual ownership of the Disputed Property becomes known Chronology of Events Regarding the Disputed Property First Avenue NE.1 The Pioneer Sand & Gravel Company, the prior owner of the property in question, petitioned for vacation of the portion of 1st Ave. NE running through its property on the north end of Lake Union in September of. (Exhibit C). The Department of Public Works of the City of Seattle in reviewing the petition remarked in part that "Access to waterfront on Lake Union will be a valuable asset in time to come. The amount of publicly owned waterfront on the North Shore Lake Union is very limited." (October, ) (Exhibit D). City records include a handwritten note which indicates that a deed was to be prepared from the Pioneer Sand & Gravel Company to the city to take effect in 0 years. The note indicates that the petition for vacation will then be granted... This note does not appear to be dated, but refers to the upcoming city hearing in December. (Exhibit E). The petition for vacation of a portion of 1st Ave. NE was granted by the City Council on the 1th of December, and signed by the mayor on January,. (Exhibit F). A deed dated the rd day of January, between the Pioneer Sand & Gravel Company and the City of Seattle conveyed the Disputed Property back to the city reserving the right of the gravel company to possess and use the land for 0 years from the date of the deed. (Exhibit G) The deed conveying the AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - () -0 Fax: () -1

4 property to the city is dated the same day as the mayor signed the vacation ordinance.. The deed was provided to King County for recording by the City of Seattle in October of. Once recorded, the deed was returned to the city. (Exhibit H). On the eighth of June, (less than four years before the 0 year period would expire) the City Council passed an ordinance attempting to disclaim all interest in the property conveyed by the deed. (Exhibit I). On or about April, 0, Richard Seaborn on behalf of the Fioritos and Reids filed an application for construction and land use permits for real property located at 0 N. Northlake Way in the City of Seattle. The Disputed Property is located within the property proposed to be developed.. During its review of the permit application and proposed project for the Northlake site, the plaintiff became aware of the facts described in sections.1 through. above. The plaintiff provided this information to the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use, and raised the question of the public s ownership interest in the 1 st Avenue NE portion of the property to be developed by the private defendants.. In response, by a letter dated December, 0, the Department of Planning and Development (formally DCLU) said, We are advised that the City does not claim ownership of the area in question, and that it is not a right-of-way. Our review of the project will proceed on that basis. (Exhibit J). Because the City s attempted conveyance of the Disputed Property and its failure and refusal to protect the public s interest in the First Avenue NE right of way constitutes violations of the Constitution of the State of Washington, state statutes and city ordinances, the plaintiff presented the matter to the Washington State Attorney General as is required by law..1 In a letter dated February 1, 0, Narda Pierce, Solicitor General of the State of Washington on behalf of the Attorney General, while not expressing an opinion on the outcome of any litigation, declined to bring an action on behalf of the State. The letter further recognized that the request by the WCC was made to fulfill the condition precedent to filing a taxpayer action, and that the WCC was an appropriate party to bring such an action. (Exhibit K) AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - () -0 Fax: () -1

5 .1 On May, 0, the Seattle Department of Planning and Development issued a decision granting the permit application for the Northlake project, which includes the Disputed Property..1 The WCC requested of the City and the attorneys for Firoritos and Reids any information which would show that the Fioritos and Reids have clear title to the Disputed Property. The defendants have failed and refused to provide any such information Claims.1 The vacation of the disputed portion of 1 st Avenue NE and its use by the adjoining landowners was conditioned on its return to the City in 0 years. The 0 year period expired in January of.. The prior owner of the Disputed Property conveyed the property by deed to the City in January of, reserving the right to use the property for 0 years from the date of the deed. The 0 year reservations of rights expired on the rd day of January,.. The attempted disclaimer of the property by the City through an ordinance in was legally ineffective to convey its interest to the prior property owners, beyond the authority of the City and in violation of law, and the City retains its ownership interest in the street.. The attempted conveyance and/or disclaimer of its interest in the property was a violation of Article VIII, of the Constitution of the State of Washington regarding gifts of public property, and state and local law regarding the use and vacation of public rights of way.. The failure and refusal of the City of Seattle to protect the public s interest in 1 st Avenue NE beginning in and most recently in 0 and 0 constitute violations of Article VIII, of the Constitution of the State of Washington regarding gifts of public property, and state and local law regarding the use and vacation of public rights of way.. A dispute exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants over the public s interest in the Disputed Property, and the Plaintiff requests that the Court quiet title of the disputed portion of 1 st Avenue NE in the City of Seattle for the purpose of a public street.. The dispute between the parties over the ownership and use of the disputed portion of 1 st Avenue NE is a continuing question of public importance, and is an actual existing controversy ripe for judicial AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - () -0 Fax: () -1

6 determination. Without such a determination, the plaintiff and public will suffer harm for which they have no adequate remedy at law.. Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a judgement and decree declaring that the City of Seattle has an ownership interest in the disputed portion of 1 st Avenue NE for the purpose of a public street, and that such interest should be protected and taken into account in its review of any permits for the development and use of the property.. Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney s fees and costs in bringing this action WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants as follows: A. That a judgment and decree be entered quieting title to the Disputed Property in the City of Seattle for the purpose of a public street. B. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment and decree that the City of Seattle has an ownership interest to the disputed portion of 1 st Avenue NE for the purpose of a public street, and that such interest should be protected and taken into account in its review of any permits for the development and use of the property C. That the Plaintiff have judgment against the Defendants jointly and severably for its attorney s fees and costs, and D. That the Court grant such other and further relief as is just and equitable. Dated this day of August, 0., WSBA # Attorney for Plaintiff AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - () -0 Fax: () -1