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
1,712 charsdiscretionary decision on summary judgment. Relying on Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998), we have held that a de novo standard of review applies when reviewing a trial court’s discretionary decision to grant or deny equitable relief on summary judgment. See Cornish Coll. of the Arts v. 1000 Virginia Ltd. P’ship, 158 Wn. App. 203, 215-16, 242 P.3d 1 (2010). More recently, our Supreme Court unanimously held that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard when reviewing a trial court’s discretionary decision on summary judgment. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 368, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015); id. at 375 (González, J., concurring) (trial court abused its discretion when striking an untimely affidavit opposing summary judgment). Because the granting of equitable remedies is the province of trial courts, not appellate courts, abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review here. Having addressed the procedural issues, I now address why my vote is against Burbank Properties, LLC (Burbank) and for Borton & Sons, Inc. (Borton). An equitable extension of time to purchase land may be warranted where an inequitable forfeiture would otherwise result. Wharf Rest., Inc. v. Port of Seattle, 24 Wn. App. 601, 612-13, 605 P.2d 334 (1979); Cornish Coll., 158 Wn. App. at 218. Here, Burbank has failed to establish that equitable relief is warranted because it has failed to establish that the forfeiture would be inequitable. 2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 36189-6-III Borton & Sons v. Burbank Props. (concurring in part) Burbank’s lender sued Burbank and its owner for defaulting on a loan agreement.