OLYMPIA - An appellate court decision prohibiting Moses Lake from requiring a homeowner to change a vacant lot remains in place.

The Washington State Supreme Court refused to review a court of appeals decision in favor of Moses Lake homeowners Tony and Pam Holiday. The Washington state Court of Appeals upheld a Grant County Superior Court judge's decision that 2009 code violations issued against the Holidays violated a 2008 prohibition order.

The case involves a vacant lot next to the Holidays' home, which they use to park vehicles, according to court records. The city issued an infraction against the couple in March 2006, and an officer told them they either needed to move the boundary line to make it one lot and place the vehicles on a "city-approved surface." The change would cost the homeowners about $3,000.

"The whole issue was to beautify Moses Lake, and I'm all for it," Tony Holiday said. "What an officer said was as long as I moved all the autos back and put gravel down then it would comply, and then he came back and said, 'Oh that only refers to your yard. It doesn't refer to a vacant lot,' and so, even though, I had moved it back and spread gravel it still didn't comply, so then if I spent $3,000 for a boundary line adjustment joining that vacant lot to my lot I would have been in compliance. I don't understand how that was beautifying Moses Lake."

A district court commissioner agreed with Tony Holiday when he brought his case to municipal court. The commissioner dismissed the infraction, saying, "That is the dumbest thing I ever heard," according to the appellate court decision.

Moses Lake City Manager Joe Gavinski said in a previous interview the city didn't appeal the commissioner's decision because the city ordinance states each violation issued counts as a new violation. City officials thought if they issued another violation the city would have another chance to be heard.

The city issued three more violation notices before suing the Holidays in June 2007 to collect an alleged $5,000 civil penalty. When the city sent a notice to the couple about a city council meeting to determine whether their property was a nuisance, the couple sued the city. 

Grant County Superior Court issued an order prohibiting the city from proceeding against the Holidays, and collecting any fines or penalties for the violations.

The city changed the ordinance in 2008 and issued another infraction. The Holidays brought the city to court for violating the order, and Grant County Superior Court Judge John Antosz agreed with the Holidays. The appellate court also agreed, stating the city's 60-day deadline to appeal the order had passed.

"The writ of prohibition prohibited the city from taking action against the Holidays except for a changed use. The record does not show a changed use. Thus, the city's April 2009 code enforcement action violated the writ of prohibition," according to the appellate court decision.

The city argued changing the ordinance in 2008 created a new law, allowing the city to issue new  violations, according to court records. The court disagreed, stating the section of the code the city used hadn't changed.

Gavinski said the city is still determining its options, since it recently received the state supreme court's decision.

"We don't know what course of enforcement action we're going to take with the Holidays," he said. "We'll probably do some consulting with some other city attorneys and determine what are options are."

Tony Holiday called the supreme court's decision a relief, saying he pursued the more than five-year-long case because he felt the city was wrong.

"Rules are rules and I'm all for rules, but there are always exceptions and we should not ever lose our common sense over rules," he said.