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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2059088-3-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,726 chars

Restoration, 28 Wn. App. 2d at 891.

a. Phase 2 deposit is not receivership estate property

Here, the record shows that LGI and ECM entered into the PSA regarding ECM’s sale of

the Property. Separately, ECM defaulted on loan payments to CLS and CLS petitioned the

superior court for the appointment of a receiver. The superior court appointed a general receiver

to take control of ECM’s assets.10

9
CLS argues that the correct standard of review is de novo because the issues in this case present
the question of the application of Washington’s receivership statute. CLS claims that the superior
court exceeded its authority when it apportioned $450,000 of the receivership estate for return to
LGI. However, CLS fails to address either Applied Restoration or Castle Walls, which both clearly
state that a trial court’s decision to enter judgment pursuant to a receivership is reviewed for abuse
of discretion. Applied Restoration, 28 Wn. App. 2d at 891; Castle Walls, 545 P.3d at 820. Thus,
the standard of review is abuse of discretion.
10
The record is not clear if ECM had other assets outside the Phase 2 property. The order
appointing the receiver explicitly states that the superior court appointed a general receiver.
General receivers “take possession and control of all or substantially all of a person’s property.”
RCW 7.60.015. Thus, this opinion assumes that the Phase 2 property constituted the bulk, if not
all, of ECM’s assets.

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 59088-3-II

When the Receiver took possession of ECM’s assets, LGI had closed only on Phase 1

property. Because the PSA contemplated the closing of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 properties, and