Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,743 charsschedule of priorities provided in RCW 7.60.230, LGI’s claim falls below that of secured creditors of the receivership estate, and the superior court erred when it ordered that LGI is entitled to return of its deposit prior to any other receivership estate distributions. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS A. BACKGROUND In December 2017, ECM Riverside LLC (ECM) purchased land, known as the Riverside Estates (Property), that it intended to subdivide into residential lots. In May 2018, ECM entered into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) for the Property with LGI, a homebuilder. The terms of the PSA1 divided LGI’s purchase into “Phase 1” and “Phase 2.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 92 (boldface omitted). Phase 1 consisted of 132 lots, for which LGI would pay a purchase price of $11,880,000. Phase 2 consisted of 50 lots, for which LGI would pay $4,500,000. Pursuant to the PSA, LGI paid a deposit of $1,621,000 for the Property, with $1,171,000 allocated as the “‘Phase 1 Deposit’” and $450,000 allocated as the “‘Phase 2 Deposit.’” CP at 142. The PSA provided that the deposits would be applied to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 purchase prices, respectively, at each closing. 1 Between May 2018 and October 2020, ECM and LGI amended the PSA six times. The amendments adjusted the ultimate purchase prices, allocations of deposits, and legal descriptions of Phase 1 and Phase 2 properties, among other terms. Unless explicitly noted, references to the PSA are based on the contract terms following the sixth and final amendment. 2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 59088-3-II LGI deposited $1,621,000 with an escrow agent. The PSA then provided that the total