Court of Appeals hears argument over vesting and title dispute in Tacoma Rescue Mission project

Division II of the Washington State Court of Appeals heard oral argument in an appeal by Spanaway Concerned Citizens challenging Pierce County’s approval of a Tacoma Rescue Mission shelter project, focusing on whether the project’s application vested during a narrow acceptance window and whether title defects made the application incomplete.

Appellant counsel David Brickland told the panel the central issue is vesting: that the application could not have vested during the six‑week window because the deed submitted at the time showed an exception for property condemned by a drainage district and a later handwritten interlineation removing that exception was not initialed, signed, or notarized and therefore had “no legal effect.” Brickland argued an examiner must sometimes ‘dig in’ to title questions to decide whether an application is complete and which code provisions apply.

“Vesting certainly protects the legitimate interests of developers against changing regulations,” Brickland told the court, but he added that if vesting is granted too readily “the public interest can be subverted.” He pressed that the record here lacked the necessary, valid proof of ownership that the Pierce County staff relied upon when accepting the application.

Counsel for Tacoma Rescue Mission, Margaret Archer, responded that Pierce County code requires only a signed attestation that the applicant holds title and that her client provided a statutory warranty deed and title insurance (described in argument as $3,700,000 of insurance) to assure record title. Archer said the challengers were asking the court to “pierce” a valid attestation and look beyond record title to adjudicate a disputed 1920 deed and a 25‑foot strip that has not been made a separate parcel.

“There is nothing in the law that allows that,” Archer said, arguing Lauer — a case the panel and counsel discussed — addressed a different fact pattern involving affirmative, knowing misrepresentations. She urged that absent a material misrepresentation, the 28‑day administrative acceptance period (the statutory deem‑complete rule) forecloses a later attack on completeness and vesting.

Judges pressed both sides on procedural limits and remedies. The panel asked how far a hearings examiner may go in examining title, whether a challenger must bring a separate quiet‑title action, and whether resolving title in a separate court action would defeat statutory timelines such as judicial review under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). Counsel for the county, David Owen, told the court staff reviewed the materials on the checklist, that the record contains substantial evidence supporting the examiner’s ruling, and that the county’s 4‑to‑1 conversion for sleeping units is intended to harmonize with — not contradict — the comprehensive plan.

The argument also touched on planning‑law specifics: the parties debated whether the proposed sleeping units (described during argument as roughly 300 square feet, without kitchens or showers) and the county’s conversion calculations rendered the proposal inconsistent with the comprehensive plan’s use or density provisions.

No decision was announced at the conclusion of the argument. The panel thanked counsel and moved on to the next scheduled oral argument.

What happens next: the court will consider the briefs and the oral argument before issuing an opinion; no timetable was given at the hearing.