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
1,766 charsimprovements. In Heckman, the parties had jointly cleared land and built a building to house an automobile dealership. 73 Wn. App. at 85.3 Like Wharf, the Heckman court relied on the same passage from Corbin indicating that equity stepped in only when a substantial permanent improvement might be forfeited. Id. at 87. Substantial permanent improvements also were at issue in Pardee. There, the trial court found that the plaintiff who had failed to timely exercise its option had put in 2,500 hours of work and spent $20,669.58 for repairs in order to build up equity as collateral for purchasing the property. 163 Wn.2d at 576. The court considered these figures “a significant forfeiture.” Id. Since the trial court erroneously had granted relief on a different basis, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider whether plaintiff was entitled to an equitable grace period in which to exercise the option. Id. at 576-77. The final case is Cornish. Cornish College entered into an agreement to sublease a portion of a six-story building with 1000 Virginia Ltd. that included an option to 3 The lessee failed to timely exercise its option at the end of the five year period and the trial court declined to grant an equitable extension as both parties had significantly contributed to the development. 73 Wn. App. at 86, 88. 10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 36189-6-III Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Prop., LLC purchase the building and the land. 158 Wn. App. at 212. Cornish renovated a portion of the property. Id. at 213. The superior court determined that Cornish would forfeit approximately $600,000 if the option were not exercised. Id. at 219. The court then