WA Legal Roundup - Division II
Vance bought a house in 1988. In 2006, Vance constructed a concrete wall adjacent to Vance's property and began building. Vance sued for nuisance. Vance sold her home for what she claimed was less than she could have if the nuisance had not existed. The trial court dismissed her claim saying that the action couldn't survive sale of the house because she no longer had standing.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court for three reasons:
1) RCW 7.48.180 reads that abated nuisances may still be recoverable. Thus, when she sold (and the new owner took knowing the nuisance and thus had no nuisance to assign back to Vance), she still had an action for the abated nuisance;
2) Damages are available for diminution (and are wayyyyyy easier to calculate after a sale);
3) Its would create absurd results to do otherwise.
I always enjoy when courts bring up absurd results without actually spelling it out. Lets your mind wander. The first justification is really all that's needed methinks.