Lake Whatcom Railway Company, App. V. Karl Alar And Jeanine Alar, Et Al., Res.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
NO. 68913-4-1
DIVISION ONE
LAKE WHATCOM RAILWAY
COMPANY, a Washington corporation,
Appellant,
v.
KARL ALAR and JEANINE ALAR,
husband and wife, and the marital
community composed thereof, and all
persons claiming any right, title or
interest through them, and STEVEN
M. SCOTT and JANE DOE SCOTT,
husband and wife, and the marital
community composed thereof, and all
persons claiming any right, title or
interest through them,
Respondents.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	February 3, 2014
m
CO
t n p 'i
^ 	ZT.-Z.-
tV3
Leach, 	C.J. 	— In 	this chapter of a 	property rights dispute 	that 	has
continued for decades, Lake Whatcom Railway Company appeals a series of trial
court 	orders.1 	It claims 	the 	court 	imposed 	limitations on 	its activities that
conflicted with the railroad's duties under federal law. 	It also contends that the
court erred by applying res judicata to bar its claims about the legal effect of the
1 On June 26, 2012, the parties satisfied the judgment contemplated by
the court's supplemental findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order entered
on May 18, 2012. 	But the record does not show that the trial court entered this
final judgment before it was satisfied.

NO. 68913-4-1/2
1901 	deed, interpreting a 	1931 	deed, and by granting a 	motion to substitute
parties. 	Lake Whatcom Railway also asserts that we have discretion under RAP
2.5(c)(2) to revisit our Supreme Court's decision in Veach v. Culp,2 which held
that the 1901 	deed conveyed an easement interest in a 	railroad right-of-way.
Because 	we 	disagree 	with 	the 	trial 	court's 	conclusion 	that the 	1931 	deed
conveyed an easement interest rather than a fee simple, but otherwise find no
error, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
Lake Whatcom 	Railway operates a 	seasonal excursion train along the
shore of Lake Whatcom. 	Frank Culp 	is its 	president. 	Karl and Jean Alar,
Stephen and Cindy Scott, and Roger and Ardis Wens (collectively Alar) own
three parcels of land abutting the lake that the railway track bisects. 	This lawsuit
involves the nature of the railway's property interest created by two conveyances,
one in 1901 and one in 1931.
In 	1901, 	Alar's 	predecessors 	in 	interest, 	Fred 	and 	Mattie 	Zobrist,
conveyed a railroad right-of-way to Bellingham Bay & Eastern Railroad Company
(Zobrist deed).3 	In 1931, Alar's predecessors in interest, Joseph and Minnie
Byron, conveyed an adjoining strip of land to Northern Pacific Railway Company
2 92 Wn.2d 570, 574, 599 P.2d 526 (1979).
3 See Veach v. Culp, 21 Wn. App. 454, 455, 585 P.2d 818 (1978).

NO. 68913-4-1/3
(Byron 	deed).4 	Burlington 	Northern 	Railroad, 	Northern 	Pacific 	Railway's
successor, 	operated a 	branch 	line 	running 	from 	Wickersham 	to 	Bellingham,
Washington, until 1970.5 This line crossed the Alar property through the right-of-
way described in the 1901 deed.
In 1972, Burlington Northern conveyed to Cascade Recreation Inc. all of
the property rights created by the 1901 and 1931 deeds. 	Cascade Recreation
also acquired 	a 	portion of Burlington 	Northern's branch line, which 	ran 	from
Wickersham 	to 	Blue 	Canyon, 	and 	began 	to 	run 	a 	weekend 	and 	summer
excursion train.6 	In 1989, Cascade Recreation conveyed these rights to Lake
Whatcom Railway.7 	Lake Whatcom Railway operates a small propane-powered
engine that pulls a miniature car that holds approximately four to ten passengers.
This train operates twice a week between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
4See Veach, 21 Wn. App. at 455.
5 See Zobrist v. Culp. 18 Wn. App. 622, 625, 570 P.2d 147 (1977); Zobrist
v. Culp. 95 Wn.2d 556, 557, 627 P.2d 1308 (1981). 	The Interstate Commerce
Commission approved Burlington Northern's abandonment of this branch line,
effective July 21, 1971. 	After this time, Burlington Northern dismantled some of
the tracks . Zobrist. 95 Wn.2d at 557. 	In 1981, the court held that one-half mile of
track on the railroad right-of-way reverted to the Zobrists after the railroad failed
to meet conditions of the original grant requiring that it not fail to operate a
railroad for a period of more than 12 consecutive months. 	Zobrist. 95 Wn.2d at
557.
6 Zobrist. 95 Wn.2d at 557.
7 Lake Whatcom Railway is the successor in title to Cascade Recreation
Inc.
-3-

NO. 68913-4-1/4
In 1976, Alar's predecessors in interest, Richard Veach, Mary Veach, and
Forrest Solem (collectively Veach) sued Culp after he constructed a fence along
the northerly edge of the right-of-way. 	Veach claimed that he owned a fee
interest in the right-of-way, that the railroad had only an easement, and that the
fence 	restricted 	his 	riparian 	rights 	and 	access 	to 	his 	waterfront 	property
unlawfully.8 The trial court held that both deeds conveyed a fee simple title to the
railroad. 	On appeal, although Veach raised the issue of the 1931 deed in his
brief, we did not decide this deed's legal effect and affirmed the trial court's
interpretation ofthe 1901 deed.9 	In Veach v. Culp. our Supreme Court reversed,
holding that the 1901 deed conveyed an easement interest in the right-of-way to
the railroad.10 	In 1980, on remand, the trial court entered a decree stating that
the 1901 deed conveyed an easement to the railroad.
In 2008, Lake Whatcom Railway filed a complaint to quiet title and for
damages against Alar, alleging that Alar stood on the rails, blocked maintenance,
dumped 	dirt on the 	right-of-way, 	burying the tracks, 	created safety hazards,
erected confusing signs, and harassed Lake Whatcom Railway's customers. 	On
February 13, 2009, the court consolidated this action with Veach v. Culp. 	The
court's order stated,
8Veach. 21 Wn. App. at 456.
9Veach. 21 Wn. App. at 454.
10 Veach. 92 Wn.2d at 575-76.
-4-

NO. 68913-4-1/5
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED Veach v. Culp. Whatcom
County Superior Court Cause No. 51720 is re-opened;
ORDERED 	ADJUDGED 	AND 	DECREED 	that 	Lake 	Whatcom
Railway Company v. Alar et. al.. Whatcom County Superior Court
Cause 	No. 	08-2-02034-3 	and 	Veach v. 	Culp, Whatcom 	County
Superior Court 	Cause 	No. 51720 	shall 	be 	consolidated 	for all
purposes for the duration of the proceedings in both matters.
On 	March 	27, 	2009, 	the 	court 	granted 	Alar's 	motion 	to 	substitute 	parties,
substituting Alar as plaintiff in this case in place of Veach and substituting Lake
Whatcom Railway as a defendant in place of Cascade Recreation Inc.
On June 24, 2009, the trial court granted Alar's motion for partial summary
judgment, ruling that under res judicata, the court's decision in Veach controlled
the 1901 deed's legal effect. 	The court dismissed Lake Whatcom Railway's
claims that did not arise out of the 1931 	deed. 	On August 21, 2009, the trial
court entered an interim order pending trial that limited Lake Whatcom Railway's
actions. 	The court modified this order orally on September 16.11 	On October 27,
Alar filed 	counterclaims against Lake Whatcom 	Railway. 	On 	November 	12,
2009, 	our 	court 	commissioner denied 	Lake Whatcom 	Railway's 	request for
discretionary review of the court's order denying Lake Whatcom Railway's motion
11 The court denied Lake Whatcom Railway's motion to vacate the interim
order but modified the order orally during a hearing on Lake Whatcom Railway's
motion to allow ongoing railroad maintenance and repairs. 	On the court's order
denying the motion to vacate the interim order, the judge wrote, "May present an
order consistent with Sept. 16 2009 oral ruling on Plaintiff motion." 	The court
entered no written order reflecting the modification.
-5-

NO. 68913-4-1/6
for partial summary judgment, its order granting Alar's motion for partial summary
judgment, and its August 21 interim order.12
The trial 	court bifurcated the case for trial. 	On September 24, 2010,
following the first phase of the trial, the court entered partial findings of fact and
partial conclusions of law. 	It held that the 1901 and 1931 deeds each conveyed
an 	easement and 	quieted 	title in Alar, subject to 	Lake Whatcom 	Railway's
easement. 	It also ruled that Lake Whatcom Railway was subject to the court's
1980 decree in Veach. 	Our court commissioner denied Lake Whatcom Railway's
request for discretionary review of this decision.
On May 18, 2012, 	following 	the 	damage 	phase of the 	trial, the 	court
entered supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law. 	The court awarded
damages against Alar to Lake Whatcom Railway but offset these damages with
damages awarded against Lake Whatcom Railway.
Lake Whatcom Railway appeals.
12 The commissioner reasoned that the notice was untimely as to the
court's 	orders denying 	Lake Whatcom 	Railway's motion for partial summary
judgment and granting Alar's motion for partial summary judgment and that the
court changed 	the August 21 	interim 	order, 	rendering 	review 	moot. 	The
commissioner also noted that Lake Whatcom Railway failed to satisfy all of the
criteria in RAP 2.3(b) for discretionary review of the August 21 order, even if the
court did not amend this order.
-6-

NO. 68913-4-1/7
ANALYSIS
Lake Whatcom Railway raises four issues. 	First, it claims that the trial
court's interim order pending trial imposing limitations conflicted with applicable
federal law. 	Second, it asserts res judicata does not bar its claims arising out of
the 1931 deed. 	Third, it contends that the court had no authority to substitute
parties. 	Finally, it alleges that we have discretion under RAP 2.5(c) to review the
propriety of our Supreme Court's ruling in Veach.
Lake Whatcom Railway alleges that its "duties and obligations as to the
operation and maintenance of the right of way are governed by federal law." 	It
then 	claims, 	"A 	state 	superior 	court 	is 	preempted 	from 	regulating 	railroad
operations" 	because 	"[t]he 	Surface 	Transportation 	Board . .. has 	exclusive
jurisdiction over matters regarding Lake Whatcom Railway."
Lake Whatcom Railway challenges the court's interim order pending trial,
which 	prohibited 	it "from 	undertaking 	any 	destruction, 	construction, 	and/or
maintenance upon 	or to any aspect of the [Alar] property whether within or
outside of the easement area without prior order of the Court." 	On September
16, 2009, the court modified this order orally, stating,
[l]n full recognition of all parties' rights ... I believe Lake Whatcom
Railroad 	can 	undergo 	its maintenance 	plan 	in any 	way 	that 	it
deems to be reasonable.
If the defendants believe that there is a problem with that,
whether it is directly in violation of their rights, or whether they think
-7-

NO. 68913-4-1/8
that 	simply something 	is 	not 	going 	as 	it should 	in terms 	of
compliance 	with all the 	regulations 	set 	forth 	by 	state, 	county,
federal authorities and anybody else, that they can, of course, not
only report the claimed or alleged violation to the agencies, but they
can come marching back in here.
Lake Whatcom Railway also challenges three conclusions of law in the court's
May 18, 2012, order:
2.12 	Pursuant to the 	1980 Decree, the court enters the
following as clarification of the 1980 Decree .. .
• 	Plaintiff has the right to operate a railroad and run a train up
and down the track;
• 	Defendants 	may 	not 	materially 	interfere 	with 	such
operations;
• 	Defendants have the right to exercise the littoral rights on
their 	property, 	including in the 	easement areas—right to
access the shoreline and the exclusive right to swim, boat,
fish, and do water related activities;
• 	Defendants have the right to use the property within and
without the railroad right of way and construct facilities down
by the beach and along the shore, as long as they are not
within 8 and VS feet from the edge of the track;
• 	Defendants may not prevent Plaintiff from having access by
the water to bridges and banks for Plaintiff's access to tracks
for inspection, maintenance and 	repair. 	The foregoing is
relevant to the small portion of the property which is at the
east side of Defendant Alar's lot right next to the trestle. 	The
intent of the 1980 Decree was for access if needed to work
on that part of the track and trestle;
• 	Defendants may cross the 	railroad right of way wherever
they may choose. 	They may establish paths, roads, steps,
etc. as needed to access the beach without interfering with
the railroad's activity or that prevents the train from coming
back and forth on the track;
• 	Plaintiff, 	and 	their 	passengers, 	may 	not 	interfere 	with
Defendant's use of the area south of the tracks which is the
beach area;
• 	Plaintiff may enter the area to the south of the tracks for
purposes 	of 	inspection 	and 	repairs. 	Passengers 	may
-8-

NO. 68913-4-1/9
embark and disembark on the south side of the tracks. 	The
passengers may not go beyond embarking, disembarking or
standing immediately next to the railroad south of the tracks;
• 	Plaintiffs shall designate with signs facing the railroad tracks
the 	appropriate 	picnic 	area 	for 	that 	north 	portion 	of 	the
easement they wish to use for such picnic area. 	The size of
the picnic area must be reasonable—it cannot encompass
the entire area from 	the trestle to the end 	of Defendant
Scott's property. 	The picnic area needs to be reasonable in
light of the number of people that travel on the train. 	It is the
Plaintiff's duty to 	undertake the designation 	of the 	picnic
area;
• 	Defendants may not 	interfere with the 	passengers in the
picnic area in anyway [sic]. 	Defendants may go back and
forth, 	but 	they 	cannot 	obstruct 	the 	train 	movements 	or
interfere with the passengers;
• 	Signs shall be erected by the Defendants, facing the track,
indicating that the area to the south of the tracks is private
beach area;
• 	Plaintiff 	is 	restrained 	from 	erecting 	any 	fences 	in 	the
easement areas;
• 	Defendants may use their property in any way as long as
that 	does 	not 	materially 	interfere 	with 	the 	railroad 	use,
provided 	that the 	construction 	of a 	privacy fence 	cannot
block the view of the lake from the railroad tracks or the
picnic area.
The foregoing is not a modification or vacation of the 1980 Decree,
but a clarification of the same. 	The foregoing shall be applicable to
both the Zobrist and Byron Easement Areas.
2.16 	.... The judgment against defendants Alar in favor of
Lake Whatcom Railway should be offset by the total damages for
plaintiff Lake Whatcom Railway's trespass of $2,001.28, for a final
judgment of $546.67 against plaintiff and in favor of defendants
Alar.
2.17 	Defendants Alar have established that plaintiff Lake
Whatcom 	Railway's 	actions 	as 	regards 	the 	fence 	constitute
trespass and/or interference to the damage of defendants Alar.

NO. 68913-4-1/10
We review de novo questions of law and the trial court's conclusions of
law.13 We treat unchallenged findings of fact as verities on appeal.14
Lake Whatcom Railway argues that 49 C.F.R. § 213, which defines track
safety standards, and 49 U.S.C. § 10501, which defines the Federal Surface
Transportation Board's jurisdiction, govern its "duties and obligations as to the
operation and maintenance of the right of way." 	49 C.F.R. § 213 does not apply
to track "[l]ocated inside an installation which is not part of the general railroad
system of transportation,"15 and 49 U.S.C. § 10501 applies only to transportation
that forms part of the interstate rail network.16 	Lake Whatcom Railway owns and
operates approximately four miles of track in Washington. 	Culp testified that as
of 1981, the section of the track at issue, the Blue Canyon track, is three-quarters
of a 	mile long, 	is separate from 	other railroad tracks, 	runs between 	no two
stations, and does not run between states. 	In Veach. our Supreme Court noted,
Here this 	railroad 	had 	been 	reduced 	to 	operation 	as 	an
excursion operation. 	It has never made any freight deliveries. 	It
has no paid employees. 	It has a very limited amount of equipment.
Its single 	locomotive is owned by approximately 30 persons. 	It
13 McClearv v. State. 173 Wn.2d 477, 514, 269 P.3d 227 (2012) (citing
Sunnvside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie. 149 Wn.2d 873, 880, 73 P.3d 369
(2003)).
14 State v. W.S.. 176 Wn. App. 231, 232 n.1, 309 P.3d 589 (2013) (citing
State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 644, 870 P.2d 313 (1994)).
15 49 C.F.R. § 213.3(b)(1).
16 49 U.S.C. § 10501(2)(A) ("Jurisdiction . . . applies only to transportation
in the United States between a place in ... a State and a place in the same or
another State as part of the interstate rail network.").
-10-

NO. 68913-4-1/11
makes three round trips on Saturdays and two on Sundays. 	It is at
the disputed site approximately only 15 minutes each trip. 	This
regular 	usage 	is 	only 	on 	weekends 	during 	the 	summer 	for
approximately 	3 	months. 	The 	other 	9 	months 	of the 	year 	it
operates only on charter, admitting that in some months it has no
charters 	at all. 	Thus 	the 	average 	use 	by the 	railroad 	of this
disputed track area would be approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes
during the weekends and then only during the summer.[17]
Lake Whatcom Railway bases its assertions on Culp's testimony that he
believed federal law applies. 	Culp testified, "In the case of the railroad, the CFR
in our opinion was the most applicable guideline for track construction." 	He also
told the court, when asked if the federal maintenance standards apply, "We—
presently they have chosen not to—we were regulated. 	They have chosen not to
inspect us at this time." 	In 2009, Lake Whatcom Railway reported no interstate
revenue to Washington.18
17 Veach. 92 Wn.2d at 575.
18 Counsel for Lake Whatcom Railway told the court,
From the documents, I could not determine if it's [federal] class
two or three. 	My client says two. ... My client believes it is a
class two but we could not find a document that says class two
or three. 	So I attached the documents that indicate that our
reports are under class two and class three.
49 C.F.R. § 1201.1-1 groups railroad carriers into three classes "[f]or purposes of
accounting 	and 	reporting." 	Class 	II 	carriers 	have 	"annual 	carrier operating
revenues of less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million after applying the
railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A." 	49 C.F.R. § 1201.1-1(a).
Class III carriers have "annual carrier operating revenues of $20 million or less
after applying the railroad revenue deflator formula shown in Note A." 	49 C.F.R.
§ 1201.1-1 (a). 	Culp testified that the train "makes about forty thousand a year."
-11-

NO. 68913-4-1/12
Lake Whatcom Railway does not demonstrate that the federal provisions it
cites apply to its operation. 	Even if these provisions apply, in light of the court's
oral 	modification 	to 	its 	written 	order 	permitting 	Lake 	Whatcom 	Railway 	to
"undergo its maintenance plan in any way that it deems to be reasonable," Lake
Whatcom Railway fails to show that the court interfered with any applicable legal
rights or obligations.
Lake Whatcom Railway also asserts that res judicata does not bar its
claims about the parties' ownership interests in the property, except those claims
arising out of the 1931 deed. 	Lake Whatcom Railway argues, "When the trial
court reopened the Veach v. Culp litigation, it was no longer a final judgment
subject to res judicata." 	Following the first part of the trial, the court entered
conclusion of law 2.5, which stated, "Plaintiff LWRR's claim of fee ownership of
the Zobrist ROW is barred by res judicata."
The application of res judicata presents an issue of law that we review de
novo.19 	Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prohibits litigating a claim
that either was, or should have been, raised and litigated in a former action.20
When the parties to two successive proceedings are the same and the prior
proceeding culminated in a final judgment, a matter "'may not be relitigated, or
19 Martin v. Wilbert. 162 Wn. App. 90, 94, 253 P.3d 108 (2011).
20 Loveridae v. Fred 	Meyer. 	Inc.. 125 Wn.2d 759, 763, 887 P.2d 898
(1995).
-12-

NO. 68913-4-1/13
even litigated for the first time, if it could have been raised, and in the exercise of
reasonable 	diligence 	should 	have been raised, 	in 	the 	prior 	proceeding.'"21
Washington courts apply a four-part test to determine if a claim has already been
decided: 	"There must be identity of (1) subject matter; (2) cause of action; (3)
persons and parties; and (4) the quality of the persons for or against whom the
claim is made.'"22
Nothing 	in the 	record 	indicates that the trial 	court vacated 	the 	1980
judgment entered in Veach. 	Accordingly, this judgment in Veach remained final.
Lake Whatcom Railway contends only that the cases do not 	have the same
subject matter, arguing, "Lake Whatcom Railway's previous neighbors did not
place a trailer on the property, build a fence, fill a drainage ditch, or obstruct the
train," and that Veach "did not discuss or decide the effect of the reversion rights
granted to the railroad in the 1901 deed." 	Here, the court properly applied res
judicata to the court's interpretation in Veach of the 1901 deed's legal effect.
Notably, the court awarded damages to Lake Whatcom Railway based upon
Alar's 	"trespass 	and/or 	material 	interference 	to 	the 	damage 	of 	plaintiff."
21 Sound Built Homes. Inc. v. Windermere Real Estate/South. Inc.. 118
Wn. App. 	617, 	627-28, 	72 	P.3d 	788 (2003) 	(quoting 	Kellv-Hansen 	v. Kellv-
Hansen. 87 Wn. App. 320, 328, 941 P.2d 1108 (1997)).
2"2 Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island County. 126 Wn.2d 22, 32,
891 P.2d 29 (1995) (quoting Rains v. State. 100 Wn.2d 660, 663, 674 P.2d 165
(1983)).
-13-

NO. 68913-4-1/14
Therefore, 	the 	court 	here 	addressed 	the 	railway's 	claims 	about 	Alar's
interference with its property rights not litigated in Veach.
Lake Whatcom Railway also challenges the trial court's determination that
the 1931 deed conveyed an easement. 	In this case, because the original parties
utilized the statutory warranty form deed and the granting clause conveys a
definite strip of land, we hold that the grantors intended to convey fee simple title
unless additional language in the deed clearly and expressly limits or qualifies
the interest conveyed.23 	The 1931 	deed contains no language clearly and
expressly limiting or qualifying the interest conveyed. Therefore, we hold that the
1931 deed conveyed a fee simple interest.
Lake Whatcom Railway also challenges the superior court's 2009 order
granting 	Alar's 	motion 	to substitute parties, 	arguing, 	"The trial 	court 	lacked
personal jurisdiction over both Veach and Solem and therefore had no power to
enter the [o]rder." 	It asserts that the Whatcom County Superior Court's 1980
decree was a "consent decree" that "operates as a contract between the parties
only." 	Lake Whatcom Railway claims that we should apply principles of contract
interpretation and "interpret the provisions addressing 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'
differently than the relevant provisions addressing 'plaintiff, and those claiming
under them' and 'defendant, and those claiming under them.'" 	It contends, "The
23 Brown v. State. 130 Wn.2d 430, 437, 924 P.2d 908 (1996).
-14-

NO. 68913-4-1/15
parties, when they used the language 'plaintiff' and 'defendant,' were intending
only the actual plaintiffs (Veach and Solem) and only the actual defendants (Culp
and Cascade Recreation)."
A consent decree is "[a] court decree that all parties agree to."24 A decree
is "[traditionally, a judicial decision in a court of equity, admiralty, divorce, or
probate—similar to a judgment of a court of law."25 	Culp testified that he never
discussed the document's language, terms, or conditions with Veach's lawyer or
with the Veaches personally. The trial court stated, "I also think it is important for
the Court to 	state that it is this Court's belief that the 1980 decree is not a
consent decree." 	No 	evidence shows that the court's 1980 decree was an
agreement among the parties, as opposed to a judicial decision following remand
that resolved disputed issues.
CR 25(c) states, "In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be
continued by or against the original party unless the court upon motion directs
the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or
joined with the original party." 	This rule does not require substitution following a
transfer of interest.26 	"'Whether or not the transferee is made a party, it will be
bound 	by an adverse judgment for its rights are no better than those of its
24 Black's Law Dictionary 471 (9th ed. 2009).
25 Black's Law Dictionary 471 (9th ed. 2009).
26 Stella Sales. Inc. v. Johnson. 97 Wn. App. 11, 17, 985 P.2d 391 (1999)
(citing CR 25(c)).
-15-

NO. 68913-4-1/16
transferor's.'"27 	Lake Whatcom Railway does not dispute that it is a successor in
interest to Cascade Recreation or that Alar is a successor in interest to Veach,
Veach, and Solem.28 	Accordingly, 	it fails to demonstrate that the trial court
abused its discretion when it granted Alar's motion to substitute parties.
Finally, Lake Whatcom Railway claims, "This [c]ourt should exercise its
discretion to re-examine the 1901 deed at issue in the Veach v. Culp litigation,
which 	has been 	reopened and consolidated with the pending matter by the
Whatcom County Superior Court, in light of the subsequent Washington case
law." Under the law of the case doctrine, "once there is an appellate court ruling,
its holding 	must be followed 	in 	all 	of the subsequent stages of the same
litigation."29 	RAP 2.5(c)(2) limits this doctrine. 	RAP 2.5(c)(2) provides that if the
same case is again before the appellate court after a remand,
[t]he appellate court may at the instance of a party review the
propriety of an earlier decision of the appellate court in the same
case and, where justice would best be served, decide the case on
the basis of the appellate court's opinion of the law at the time of
the later review.
27 Stella Sales, 97 Wn. App. 	at 17-18 (quoting Anderson & Middleton
Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 79 Wn. App. 221, 227, 901 P.2d 1060
(1995)).
28 Culp formerly owned Cascade Recreation.
29 State v. Schwab, 163 Wn.2d 664, 672, 185 P.3d 1151 (2008) (citing
Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41, 123 P.3d 844 (2005); Lutheran Day Care
v. Snohomish County. 119 Wn.2d 91, 113, 829 P.2d 746 (1992)).
-16-

NO. 68913-4-1/17
The appellate court may reconsider an earlier decision in the same case "where
there has been an intervening change in the law."30 	It has discretion to apply this
exception to the law ofthe case doctrine.31 	This rule does not purport to give this
court any authority to modify a decision of our Supreme Court. 	We do not have
that authority. 	We are obliged to follow a decision of the Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
Lake Whatcom Railway fails to establish that the trial court's decisions
violated federal law. The court properly determined that res judicata barred Lake
Whatcom Railway from relitigating the legal effect of the 1901 deed, 	but we
disagree with its interpretation of the 1931 deed. 	The trial court appropriately
substituted parties. 	We have 	no authority under RAP 2.5(c)(2) to revise our
Supreme Court's decision in Veach. 	For these reasons, we reverse in part and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
U~4t 	e./
WE CONCUR:
30 Schwab. 163 Wn.2d at 672-73 (citing Roberson. 156 Wn.2d at 42).
31 Schwab. 163 Wn.2d at 672 (citing Roberson. 156 Wn.2d at 42).
-17-