[WSBARP] Statute of Limitations Question

[John M. Riley III]

And what of the doctrine of merger into the deed   Barber v. Peringer?

John Riley


John M. Riley III
Principal | Witherspoon * Kelley
JMR at witherspoonkelley.com<mailto:JMR at witherspoonkelley.com> | Attorney Profile <http://www.witherspoonkelley.com/john-riley-1> | vCard<http://www.witherspoonkelley.com/s/jmr.vcf>

[WK]

422 W. Riverside Ave, Ste 1100
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 624-5265 (office)
(509) 458-2728 (fax)
witherspoonkelley.com


Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Richard Holland
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:37 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Statute of Limitations Question

Wouldn't Party A's argument be equity based like laches / estoppel and not Stat of Limitations?  I mean the SOL runs from breach and where exactly would the measuring/trigger point be?  Best case somehow at sale from D1 to D2?

(cryptically from mobile)

Rich Holland

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Ron Housh
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:18 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Statute of Limitations Question

Interesting statute of limitations issue.

Party A buys Parcel A from Developer One in 2006.
Party A agrees to cooperate "to the greatest extent possible" [whatever that means] in seller's completion of a Rural Cluster Subdivision - a 32 Lot development.
Upon approval of the Plat then an additional Parcel will be available for Party A to purchase.
Party A further agrees to "adhere to the CCR's of the Plat to be established" and further agrees to "respect and acknowledge" [whatever that means] the open space and native growth protection area in the Plat.

Developer One never develops the property and eventually sells all of the properties - except Parcel A which is still owned by Party A -   to Developer Two.

Developer Two is now seeking Plat approval which incorporates Parcel A  into the plat and incorporates Parcel A into the CCR's and is asking Party A to sign off.

Party A says:  I do not want my Parcel A to be part of the development; I do not want it to be subject to the CCR's and it has been over 10 years since I had the Agreement with Developer One.

Are Developer Two's claims that Party A has duties under the 2006 Sale Agreement time barred?

Thanks,

Ron


I AM TYPICALLY IN THE SEATTLE OFFICE ON TUESDAY AND THURSDAY AND IN THE MOUNT VERNON OFFICE ON MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY

Ronald G. Housh, P.S.
Attorney at Law

Seattle Office:
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101-2393
Phone:   206-381-1341
Fax:        206-464-0461
Email:    ron at housh.org<mailto:ron at housh.org>

Mount Vernon Office:
21411 Bluejay Place
Mount Vernon, WA 98274
Phone:  206-235-2459
Email:   ron at housh.org<mailto:ron at housh.org>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170728/e2548efd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WK-Email-Logo_c39ae46e-8f64-41c9-b47d-7d62d54d7f68.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7508 bytes
Desc: WK-Email-Logo_c39ae46e-8f64-41c9-b47d-7d62d54d7f68.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170728/e2548efd/WK-Email-Logo_c39ae46e-8f64-41c9-b47d-7d62d54d7f68.png>