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

964 chars

of Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys’ Fees,” which discusses the allowance of fees and costs as it

relates to obligations existing between CLS and ECM. ECM is not a party to this appeal. Thus,

the CLS Deed does not provide authority for the award of fees against LGI to CLS. We reject

CLS’s request for attorney fees on appeal.

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 59088-3-II

CONCLUSION

We hold that the superior court did not err when it determined that LGI’s deposit was not

part of the receivership estate. However, 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 the superior court’s ruling that LGI’s deposit was not part of the receivership estate, but we

reverse superior court ruling that LGI receive $450,000 in advance of CLS’s claim.

Lee, J.
We concur:

Cruser, C.J.

Price, J.

25