Court of Appeals reopens Edmonds tree mandate case

Published 4:30 pm Friday, April 10, 2026

EVERETT — The Washington State Court of Appeals reopened a case Thursday involving the city of Edmonds’ tree regulations.

The court dismissed the case as moot earlier this month, effectively ruling that the city did not have to pay damages to Edmonds resident Nathan Rimmer.

On April 3, Rimmer’s attorney, Brian Hodges filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its dismissal. Hodges is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit law firm. The city has 15 days to respond to Hodges’ motion.

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. For the city to make a decision on the permit, staff required him to make plans to replace the tree and dedicate a portion of land to plant two more trees in its place. In July 2023, Rimmer sued the city, alleging the requirement was unconstitutional.

In January 2024, a Snohomish County Superior Court judge ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional. In December 2024, the judge found the city responsible for financial damages accrued during the case. The city appealed the order that it must approve Rimmer’s permit. 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 the court could provide no further damages to the city or to Rimmer.

The panel also wrote that Rimmer should have sought damages through the Land Use Petition Act through the county. Hodges argued that the Land Use Petition Act does not apply to unconstitutional acts that happen during the decision-making process. Hodges further 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 of Edmonds did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

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