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
1,792 charsthat the PSA was an executory contract that it had the authority to reject and the Receiver was already considering other offers for Phase 2 for substantially higher purchase prices. The superior court agreed with the Receiver and denied LGI’s motion. The superior court also found that the PSA qualified as an executory contract that the Receiver could reject or assume pursuant to RCW 7.60.130. The Receiver then moved to reject the PSA. In March 2021, LGI filed a proof of claim with the superior court, asserting that it was owed the $450,000 deposit for Phase 2.5 In May 2021, the superior court granted the Receiver’s motion and issued an order granting the Receiver’s rejection of the PSA. The Receiver did not return to LGI its $450,000 Phase 2 deposit. 5 Several ECM creditors, including CLS, filed claims against the receivership estate. LGI also made additional claims, specifically claims for breach of contract and for attorney fees. The Receiver determined that LGI’s breach of contract claim and attorney fees claim were both unsecured and to be paid following any claims of secured creditors and receivership estate administrative costs. CLS appeals only the superior court’s decision that LGI’s deposit was not part of the receivership estate and that LGI was entitled to return of its deposit ahead of the estate’s secured creditors. CLS does not argue that LGI has no claims against the receivership estate; thus, LGI’s additional claims are not relevant to this appeal. 5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 59088-3-II In November 2022, the Receiver sold the Phase 2 property to another buyer for an ultimate purchase price of $6,300,000. The receivership estate netted $5,928,813.48 in proceeds from the sale.