The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld an anti-harassment protection order against Sallie Ann Miles, a neighbor of Jason and Kimberly Miller. The court's decision, filed on October 27, 2026, confirms that the Millers were justified in seeking protection from what they described as a pattern of harassing behavior by Miles. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal protections available to individuals facing harassment from neighbors.

In this case, the Millers claimed that Miles engaged in numerous acts of harassment, including damaging their property and obstructing access to their shared driveway. The court's ruling affirms the lower court's findings that Miles' actions constituted unlawful harassment, thereby granting the Millers legal protection.

Background

Jason A. Miller and Kimberly L. Miller are residents who share a driveway with their neighbor, Sallie Ann Miles. The dispute between the parties began in November 2024, when the Millers obtained a temporary protection order against Miles. They alleged that she had damaged their property and stolen their belongings, among other accusations.

In February 2025, Miles responded by filing a complaint against the Millers in superior court, claiming issues related to property rights, including quiet title, ejectment, and trespass. However, by April 2025, the superior court issued an anti-harassment protection order against Miles, which was based on the Millers' claims of harassment and the court's findings regarding Miles' credibility.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and ultimately affirmed the superior court's issuance of the anti-harassment protection order. The court stated, "The superior court did not err in granting the Millers’ petition for an anti-harassment order." This affirmation indicates that the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the lower court's decision.

The ruling emphasized that the superior court had determined Miles was not credible and had engaged in a series of harassing actions. The court found that Miles had disconnected the Millers' floodlight security cameras, turned off their water spigot, and blocked their access to the shared driveway. The order specifically prohibited Miles from entering the Millers' property and from interfering with their use of the shared easement.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for individuals facing harassment from neighbors. It reinforces the ability of courts to issue anti-harassment protection orders when there is credible evidence of unlawful harassment. The court's decision serves as a reminder that neighbors have legal recourse when they are subjected to a pattern of harassment.

Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that an anti-harassment order does not resolve underlying property disputes but is intended to protect individuals from ongoing harassment. The court highlighted that the protection order was not punitive but aimed at preventing further harassment, which is a critical distinction in such cases.

What's Next

While Miles has the option to appeal the ruling further, the court filing did not indicate whether she plans to do so. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could affect the outcome of this decision. The court's ruling stands as a significant legal precedent for similar cases involving neighbor disputes and harassment.