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

Full Text

1,766 chars

(emphasis added) (citing 1 ARTHUR L. CORBIN, CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 35, at 146-47

(1963)). Wharf astutely noted:

The courts which have considered this problem have not found the
solution simple. On the one hand is equity’s abhorrence of a forfeiture. On
the other hand is the general reluctance of courts to relieve a party from its
own negligent failure to timely exercise an option, when to do so might
tend to introduce instability into business transactions and disregard
commercial realities.

Id. at 610.

A forfeiture is:

1. The divestiture of property without compensation. 2. The loss of a right,
privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of
duty. . . . 3. A destruction or deprivation of some estate or right because of
the failure to perform some contractual obligation or condition.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 765 (10th ed. 2014).

Burbank argues that it did not have to make a permanent improvement to the land

in order to seek relief in equity and that it would constitute an inequitable forfeiture to

forego the value it would have gained by selling the property at market value in 2016 and

the value of the hay it had planted but could not harvest in 2019. We disagree with his

first two arguments and conclude the other was unproved.

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

Planting an annual crop as one has been doing for years does not constitute a

permanent improvement in the land. Burbank has provided no authority to the contrary

and tacitly seems to agree by, instead, arguing it had no need to establish permanent

improvement. We disagree. All four of the Washington cases on this topic begin with,