Court of Appeals denies reconsideration of Edmonds tree case

Published 1:23 pm Monday, May 11, 2026

EVERETT — The Washington State Court of Appeals denied a motion Thursday to reconsider a case involving the city of Edmonds’ tree regulations, holding its ruling that the city does not have to pay damages to a resident.

In March, the court dismissed the case as moot, saying it could no longer provide effective relief to the city or to resident Nathan Rimmer.

In 2022, Rimmer submitted a permit to build a single-family home on a vacant lot in Edmonds. His building plans required him to remove a dogwood tree. Before the city could issue a decision on the permit, staff required Rimmer to make plans to replace the tree and dedicate a piece of land to plant two more trees in its place. In 2023, Rimmer sued the city, alleging the requirement was unconstitutional.

In January 2024, a judge ruled the mandate unconstitutional and in December found the city responsible for financial damages accrued during the case. The judge ordered the city to approve Rimmer’s permit, which the city appealed. The question of whether the city would have to pay damages was set to be decided after the appeal, according to the December 2024 court order.

In April 2024, the city approved Rimmer’s permit. Shortly after, he sold the property and a new owner built a home without having to replace the tree. In October 2025, the city updated its tree code, changing its procedures for tree removal.

In its dismissal, the appellate panel wrote that Rimmer should have sought damages through the Land Use Petition Act.

In April, Brian Hodges, Rimmer’s attorney, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its dismissal. Hodges is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit law firm. He argued that the Land Use Petition Act does not apply to acts that occur during the decision-making process. Hodges also argued that because the city appealed the court order that it must approve Rimmer’s permit instead of the ruling that it was liable for damages, the city should still have to pay damages.

The city argued in its response that because it issued the permit to Rimmer without the challenged conditions, Rimmer’s claim for damages was moot.

City officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Now, Hodges said he plans to escalate the case to the Washington Supreme Court.

“While we’re disappointed in the appellate court’s ruling, the decision leaves an important question unresolved—whether a property owner can recover damages when a city withholds a permit for years in order to force an applicant to cave to its unconstitutional demands,” Hodges said in a statement Monday.

Jenna Peterson: 425-339-3486; jenna.peterson@heraldnet.com; X: @jennarpetersonn.