Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/361896_pub.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
Full Text
1,726 charsThe traditional interplay of law and equity provides a complicated puzzle on these facts. Principles of summary judgment and contract law inform our approach to this appeal.1 1 Although this case comes to us from summary judgment, this author has grave reservations about whether an equitable remedy can be granted in that setting. But see Cornish Coll. of the Arts v. 1000 Va. Ltd. P’ship, 158 Wn. App. 203, 242 P.3d 1 (2010). Judges do not weigh evidence or decide facts at summary judgment, but a weighing of equities and an assessment of the existence of damages both factor significantly in determining whether an inequitable forfeiture might have occurred. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required in equity cases just as they are required in nonjury cases at law. CR 52(a)(1). With the exception of Cornish, the other cases applying this remedy in Washington did so after a trial. We appreciate that time was of the essence to both parties here and that declaratory judgment actions typically are heard in a brief bench trial, but it is difficult to justify the necessary fact-finding at summary judgment. However, neither party challenged the court’s ability to apply the equitable remedy at summary judgment or on appeal. 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 36189-6-III Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Prop., LLC This court reviews declaratory judgment actions the same as it does any other civil case. To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403, 410, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001). Summary judgment rulings are reviewed de novo since an appellate court sits in the same position as the trial court. Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 706-07, 50 P.3d