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

Related Parts of This Source

1,759 chars

it was “an acceptable result for the termination of an option.” 163 Wn.2d at 576. While

the potential $300,000 discount here is a significant figure, it was the cost of enticing a

fellow farmer to become an investor. Both parties wanted the land, and both were willing

to enter into this deal in the hopes that they would ultimately own it. The discounted sale

price was not a forfeiture.

The remaining possibility is the value of the second year of the hay crop. No

evidence was produced suggesting the potential value of this crop in 2019 despite the fact

that Burbank had planted hay on the property in earlier years and should have had records

from which to suggest a value. Whether there was any profit to be had from the hay is

simply unknown.

Burbank did not establish that it suffered an inequitable forfeiture. There was no

relevant evidence before the trial court to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the court had

no basis for finding that an inequitable forfeiture would occur that required the late

exercise of the purchase option.

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 36189-6-111
Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Prop., LLC

Attorney Fees

The trial court awarded Burbank its attorney fees in the trial court under the terms

of the lease agreement. Burbank seeks to defend that award here and both parties seek

attorney fees on appeal.

Because we reverse the trial court, we also reverse the superior court fee award.

Attorney fees are available on appeal when there is a contractual or statutory basis for

doing so. RAP 18.l(a). As prevailing party, we award Borton its attorney fees under the

lease agreement subject to timely compliance with RAP 18.l(d).

Reversed.

I CONCUR: