Seattle Attorneys Blog
When does a neighbor dispute cross the line into unlawful harassment—and what can a court do about it? In Perkins v. Jensen, No. 88080-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. April 27, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed an anti-harassment protection order against a construction company co-owner whose employees engaged in a pattern of deliberate harassment against a neighboring homeowner in Snohomish County. The decision addresses several important questions about how anti-harassment protection orders work under Washington’s protection order statute, chapter 7.105 RCW.
If you are dealing with harassment from a neighbor, a business, or any other person, the attorneys at Blair & Kim can help you understand your legal options. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.
What Happened in Perkins v. Jensen?
The case arose from a property line dispute in Snohomish County. The respondent co-owned a construction company that operated on property adjacent to the petitioner’s home. After a boundary disagreement, the petitioner alleged that the company’s employees began a campaign of deliberate harassment: running loud machinery outside of county quiet hours, shouting and making animal noises at her, throwing contaminated debris onto her property, and urinating through the fence onto her land.
A superior court commissioner granted the anti-harassment protection order, finding the petitioner credible and concluding the harassment was intentional, willful, and directed at the petitioner’s family. The commissioner also found the conduct was designed to make the family not want to live in their home. The respondent moved for revision; the superior court revised the noise restriction to align with the Snohomish County noise code but otherwise upheld the order. The respondent appealed.
Key Takeaways From the Decision
1. Deliberately Harassing a Neighbor Is Unlawful Under Washington Law
Under RCW 7.105.010(37)(a), “unlawful harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to that person and serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The respondent argued that using construction equipment on his own property served a legitimate business purpose. The Court of Appeals was not persuaded—because the alleged harassment went far beyond business operations. Yelling animal noises at a neighbor, urinating on her property, and throwing debris over the fence serve no legitimate purpose.
The court’s analysis drew a clear line: operating equipment during business hours may be legitimate, but a pattern of conduct designed to drive a neighbor from her home is not. Courts will look at the full course of conduct, not just individual acts in isolation.
Blair & Kim handles civil protection order cases for both petitioners and respondents throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, including in Bellevue, Kirkland, and Lynnwood. Reach out to discuss your situation.
2. A Business Owner Can Be Held Liable for Directing Employees to Harass
The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to present evidence that he personally committed harassment. The Court of Appeals rejected this, pointing to the commissioner’s finding that the respondent was “instructing third parties” to carry out the harassment. The evidence included a statement from the petitioner to the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office reporting that when her husband confronted employees about early-morning equipment use, an employee responded that they were “just doing what our boss/owner told us to do.”
The court cited State v. Becklin, 163 Wn.2d 519 (2008), which established that the definition of harassment is broad enough to include manipulating or directing third parties to achieve the intended distress. You do not need to commit the harassing acts personally to be subject to a protection order—directing others to do so is enough.
3. Hearsay Is Admissible in Protection Order Proceedings
The respondent argued that the employee’s statement was inadmissible hearsay. The Court of Appeals disagreed, citing Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460 (2006), which held that the rules of evidence do not apply in protection order proceedings under ER 1101(c)(4). The court confirmed that evidence supporting a protection order “may contain hearsay or be wholly documentary.” This is an important practical point: petitioners do not need to produce live witnesses or satisfy the formal rules of evidence to obtain a protection order in Washington.
4. An Anti-Harassment Order Can Coexist With a Property Dispute
The respondent’s final argument was that the protection order improperly resolved an ongoing boundary dispute. The court rejected this too, distinguishing Buchheit v. Geiger, 192 Wn. App. 691 (2016), where a protection order was reversed because it prevented the respondent from accessing property to which he had a cognizable claim. In Perkins, the order did not prevent the respondent from using his property—it only required him to stop harassing the petitioner. The harassment and the boundary dispute were separable issues.
The court also noted in a footnote that Buchheit was decided under former RCW 10.14, which was repealed and reorganized into chapter 7.105 RCW effective July 1, 2022. The new statute does not include the same restriction on anti-harassment orders related to disputed property claims, suggesting Buchheit may no longer be good law—though the court did not need to reach that question.
What This Means for Protection Order Cases in Washington
The Perkins decision reinforces that Washington’s anti-harassment protection order statute provides broad protection. Courts will look at the totality of a respondent’s conduct, not just isolated acts. Directing others to harass someone is as actionable as doing it yourself. Hearsay is admissible. And a protection order does not become improper simply because the parties also have a property or business dispute—as long as the order addresses the harassment rather than resolving the underlying civil claim.
For petitioners, this means the protection order process is accessible even in situations involving businesses, employees, and complex factual backgrounds. For respondents, it means that delegating harassing conduct to employees or agents will not shield you from liability.
How Blair & Kim Can Help
Anti-harassment protection orders are one of several types of civil protection orders available under chapter 7.105 RCW, alongside domestic violence protection orders, sexual assault protection orders, stalking protection orders, and vulnerable adult protection orders. The attorneys at Blair & Kim, PLLC handle all types of protection order matters—for both petitioners and respondents—across King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County. Whether your case involves a neighbor dispute, a family law matter, or a situation with criminal defense implications, the firm can help you prepare for the hearing that matters most.
Every case is different. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you need an anti-harassment protection order or are responding to one, contact Blair & Kim today at (206) 622-6562 or submit a confidential inquiry online.