[WSBARP] New SC Case on Equitable Servitudes

[Rich Holland]

I don't read it to go that far at all.  It seems to me that the case for the majority hinged on there being tangible things like a plat and advertising flyers that were the key and that the concurring w/ dissent simply felt that the tangible items were not sufficient to place the matter at issue as 'systematic'.  I don't think testimony alone, particularly given the deadman's statute would have been enough, but I am open to discussion about it.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Clark, Catherine
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:29 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: [WSBARP] New SC Case on Equitable Servitudes

Folks:

Have a read of this if you haven't already.


Nov. 20, 2014 - 88575-3 - Riverview Cmty. Grp. v. Spencer & Livingston

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=885753MAJ


I'm still trying to get my head around it.  Seems to me that the SC is holding that the statements of an agent selling lots may create an equitable servitude on the seller.

Oh boy ...

Catherine C. Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4105
Seattle, WA  98104
Phone:  (206) 838-2528
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email:  cat at loccc.com<mailto:cat at loccc.com>

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information transmission is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20141120/439126a3/attachment.html>