[WSBARP] Statute of Limitations Question

Fri Jul 28 12:31:58 PDT 2017

John and Rich:

Thanks.

I have not dealt much with merger principles.

Seems Developer will argue Party A's "obligations" are collateral contract
requirements.

Perhaps it could be argued by Party A that the subsequent failure to deliver
to Party A good title to the "additional parcel" [because Developer One
never developed] was a pre-condition not met thus excusing any further
obligations of Party A?

I like Rich's estoppel/laches argument.

At some point whether under principles of equity or law any duty on A's part
must be excused.  As Party A has said, "What if the land was sold to a third
developer who developed 25 years from now, would that developer be able to
claim that I - party A - must agree that my parcel A is to be part of the
plat and the CCR's?"   I think not.

Ron

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.

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:     <mailto:ron at housh.org> ron at housh.org

Mount Vernon Office:

21411 Bluejay Place

Mount Vernon, WA 98274

Phone:  206-235-2459

Email:    <mailto:ron at housh.org> ron at housh.org

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of John M. Riley III
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:01 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Statute of Limitations Question

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

Interesting statute of limitations issue.