Conclusion of Affair on Carol Lane & Critical Bylaw Amendment
/Conclusion of the Lawsuit Against Dustin Wolfe and Mitch Nimon
Results of the court hearing on Friday, January 31, 2025 concerning Carol Lane events-A letter from our legal team
Why the Bylaw Amendment is critical
Absentee ballots for the Bylaw Amendment need to be received on-island by Friday, February 21, 2025
A letter from our legal team on the conclusion of the lawsuit
February 1, 2025
To: Lummi Island Scenic Estates Community
Re: Conclusion of the lawsuit against Dustin Wolfe and Mitch Nimon
Dear Members of the LISE Community:
I write to advise you of the conclusion of LISECC’s lawsuit against Defendants Dustin Wolfe and Mitch Nimon.
Before I do so, however, I want to note that it is unfortunate that Defendant Wolfe’s and Defendant Nimon’s behavior and refusal to comply with the community’s rules and Washington law necessitated LISECC’s lawsuit. That lawsuit has resulted in attorney’s fees and costs that the community must bear and a drag on the time of your professional staff and your volunteer leadership. The alternative would have been to capitulate to their unlawful claim to a LISECC road and destruction of LISECC’s property.
Now, the conclusion. The Whatcom County Superior Court has entered judgment against Mr. Nimon and will enter judgment against Mr. Wolfe in the next week. The lawsuit accomplished several important things for the community.
1. The Court ruled that LISECC, alone, holds title to Carol Lane. The Court ordered Whatcom County to remove the unlawful “Quitclaim to title of easement” recorded by Defendant Wolfe against Carol Lane.
2. The Court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant Wolfe from:
(a) interfering with LISECC’s control and governance of LISE Tracts A-C
(including Carol Lane);
(b) taking any possessory actions on LISE Tracts A-C;
(c) cutting any trees in LISE, other than on Lot 2;
(d) cutting any trees on Lot 2 without first obtaining necessary permission from
Whatcom County and the Washington Department of Natural Resources and
presenting such proof of permission to LISECC for confirmation;
(e) building on Lot 2 any type of temporary or permanent structure, without first
obtaining a building permit from Whatcom County and presenting the permit to
LISECC for confirmation; and
(f) keeping more than two dogs on Lot 2.
The Court further directed that the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Department will protect LISECC and its employees and representatives to the degree it is necessary for LISECC to enforce any of the injunctive relief granted.
3. The Court ruled that Defendant Nimon, alone, is the owner of Lot 2. Defendant Wolfe is not entitled to take any actions as owner of that property such as, for example, voting as a member of LISE. The Court ruled that Nimon is liable to LISECC for all damages caused by his tenant, Wolfe.
4. The Court ruled that Defendant Wolfe’s actions of erecting fencing, signs, a gate, and a camera constitute invasion of LISECC’s property and trespass and caused LISECC damages. Those damages, in the amount of $1,305.00, were awarded against Wolfe.
5. The Court ruled that Defendant Wolfe’s actions of felling trees into Holiday Lake constituted a private and public nuisance which damaged LISECC.
6. The Court affirmed that LISECC’s governing Rules and Regulations entitle LISECC to an award of the cost of restoring the damage Wolfe caused by felling the trees into Holiday Lake.
The Court ordered that LISECC was entitled to an award of damages against Defendant Wolfe with respect to Nos. 5 and 6 above. However, because it would have required LISECC to incur additional attorney’s fees in a more protracted lawsuit to establish the amount of those damages and, given what LISECC knows about Defendant Wolfe’s ability to pay any award, LISECC’s leadership determined that LISECC would abandon pursuing these additional damages and the substantial additional attorney’s fees that would follow.
LISECC was burdened in this lawsuit by the absence of an attorney’s fee provision under LISECC’s Bylaws that would have allowed LISECC to recover its attorney’s fees for successfully vindicating its rights against Defendants Wolfe and Nimon. The community is presently considering a change to its Bylaws so that if there is ever a need to again defend the community’s interests, the community will not be stuck with the attorney’s fees needed to successfully obtain relief from court.
I want to commend your community for the wisdom and good fortune of having volunteer leaders Jim Coats and David Canterman who have worked closely at every step with my firm to protect the community’s interests and make wise decisions about when to call it a day. I also am grateful to your professional staff who interrupted their regular work to answer many questions from me and to prepare declarations that were instrumental in our successful litigation.
Mr. Wolfe has filed counterclaims against LISECC. Those are being ably defended by Bellingham attorney Shane Brady who is paid by LISECC’s insurer.
Sincerely,
Jessica L. Goldman
SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC
Editor's Note: Two things to note from the letter...
The above letter from Jessica Goldman, lead attorney on our suit concerning Carol Lane events is, indeed, good news and we are grateful for the expertise of her entire team at Summit Law Group.
While we are glad to see the suit reach the conclusion it has, it should be noted that Wolfe had filed several counterclaims on adjoining issues - including defamation of character. Those suits naming LISECC as defendant are being defended through a separate legal team retained by our insurers. We fully expect to prevail in those suits as well.
The second point that Jessica pointed out is that, had the proposed bylaw amendment been in place, it is extremely likely that legal fees would have been granted to the substantially prevailing party (in this case - LISECC).
Please return your ballots by the cutoff date (see below) and vote to amend our bylaws to help keep frivolous, un-necessary lawsuits out of the court system.
The bar to reach to amend a bylaw is very high. – higher than in any other issue this community normally votes on. A majority of the total eligible membership is required to enact the amendment. In order to receive the required number of affirmative votes, we need everyone to fill out their ballots and send them back to arrive no later than Friday, Feb. 21.
Ballots for the bylaw amendment proposed by the board of directors need to be received at the Lummi Island Post Office by Friday, February 21.
As a result of the open community discussion held at the last Board of Directors’ meeting (Sunday, January 26, 2025), there have been a couple of minor changes made to the wording of the amendment. It’s important to note that none of the minor changes in language alters the statement as originally presented or its intent.
Here is the revised version (also available from the LISECC website by clicking here):
If the amendment passes, the text will be recorded with the following corrections as allowed by the Revised Code of Washington. The changes are to reflect consistency of phrase (1), to correct a simple scrivener’s error (2), and to clarify an ambiguity (3).
Section 4.5
Dues and assessments, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Article 4.5.4 – Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
4.5.4.1
LISE shall be entitled to recover any reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (1) incurred in connection with the collection of delinquent accounts (2), whether or not such collection activities result in suit being commenced or prosecuted to judgment. In addition, LISE shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (1) if it prevails on appeal and in the enforcement of a judgment, as determined by the court. In any other proceeding to enforce LISE’s governing documents, rules, and regulations, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs (1) against the non-prevailing party, as determined by the court. In the event that the prevailing party is LISE, the attorneys’ fees and costs (1) so awarded shall constitute an assessment against the non-prevailing member’s (3) lot(s).
4.5.4.1 (a)
In the event a lawsuit is brought against LISE by a member, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs (1) against the non-prevailing party, as determined by the court. In the event that the prevailing party is LISE, the attorneys’ fees and costs (1) so awarded shall constitute an assessment against the non-prevailing member’s (3) lot(s).
(1) Changed to ensure consistency
(2) Changed to correct a scrivener’s error
(3) Changed to clarify an ambiguity
