Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,759 chars

exercised the option and was planning to close on the property by December 31, 2018.

Borton initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine the status of the

purchase option. Burbank answered and counterclaimed for its own declaratory

judgment, arguing both that it properly exercised its option and that it was entitled to an

equitable grace period to do so. Discovery was rapidly conducted and both parties soon

sought summary judgment. The competing motions then were argued to the trial court.

Burbank contended that it would lose the value of the Timothy hay and the equity it

would obtain by repurchasing the property. Borton argued that Burbank had failed to

timely or properly give notice, was unable to perform the purchase, and had not made any

improvements justifying equitable relief.

The trial court concluded that an equitable grace period was called for due to the

potential loss of hay and equity. Report of Proceedings at 16. An order was entered

granting summary judgment for Burbank and authorizing it to close on the property by

December 31, 2018. Burbank was also awarded its attorney fees based on the lease

3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 36189-6-III
Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Prop., LLC

agreement. Borton’s motion for summary judgment was denied, as was its subsequent

motion for reconsideration.

Borton then timely appealed to this court. A panel heard oral argument of this

case at Whitman College in Walla Walla.

ANALYSIS

The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in its respective summary

judgment rulings by awarding equitable relief. We address that issue before briefly

turning to the question of attorney fees.

Equitable Relief