Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,712 chars
discretionary 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.