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

Related Parts of This Source

1,774 chars

awarded an equitable grace period and granted specific performance. Id. at 214. On

appeal, Division One of this court upheld the equitable relief. Id. at 219.

In all four of these instances, the option holder had expended significant funds

making permanent improvements to the land it hoped to purchase. Here, Burbank simply

continued its normal farming operation in expectation that it would continue to work the

land. This is not the significant investment in the property that Professor Corbin viewed

as the foundation for seeking equitable relief.

Even if Burbank is correct that significant permanent improvements were not

necessary in order to obtain equitable relief, it still failed to show than an inequitable

forfeiture occurred because it did not demonstrate that it would lose any significant value.

It cites first to the fact that the land was sold for $300,000 below its market value and that

it could have realized that sum if it had sold the land for fair market value in 2016. Even

assuming that it could have realized full value from a forced sale in 2016, Burbank has

not argued, and has not demonstrated, that it could have sold the land for any greater sum

and still obtained an option to repurchase. The discounted sale price was the cost of the

option in order to find someone willing to invest in the property for the short term.

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

The cost of an option is not a component of an inequitable forfeiture. On point

here is Pardee. There the option holder paid $16,000 to obtain the purchase option. In

its assessment of the forfeiture possibility, the court excluded the option cost, noting that