Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,722 chars
time and in the proper manner. However, Washington recognizes that in some instances

equity will excuse the untimely exercise of an option to purchase real estate. An

equitable remedy is an extraordinary, not ordinary, form of relief. Sorenson v. Pyeatt,

158 Wn.2d 523, 531, 146 P.3d 1172 (2006). A court will grant equitable relief only

when there is a showing that a party is entitled to a remedy and the remedy at law is

inadequate. Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 252, 692 P.2d 793 (1984).

Whether a party is entitled to equitable relief “is in large part a matter addressed to the

discretion of the trial court, with discretion to be exercised in light of the facts and

circumstances of the particular case.” Heckman Motors, Inc. v. Gunn, 73 Wn. App. 84,

88, 867 P.2d 683 (1994).

Burbank argues that it is entitled to equitable relief in order to avoid an inequitable

forfeiture. Washington recognizes that equitable relief may be warranted in limited

circumstances where an inequitable forfeiture would otherwise result. Wharf Rest., Inc.

v. Port of Seattle, 24 Wn. App. 601, 611, 605 P.2d 334 (1979). This is because

forfeitures “are not favored in law and are never enforced in equity unless the right

thereto is so clear as to permit no denial.” Pardee, 163 Wn.2d at 574. When the holder

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

of an option makes valuable permanent improvements to the property with the intention

to give its notice to exercise or extend the option, but then fails to timely give such

notice, an equitable period of grace may be appropriate. Wharf, 24 Wn. App. at 611