[WSBARP] lis pendens

[Jay Goldstein]

I would disagree and the case you cite is the key case:-- Schwab v. Seattle

Lien is an encumbrance on title and accordingly lis pendens is appropriate.

J

Jay A. Goldstein
Of Counsel
[Logo Color 946x243 pixels]
1800 Cooper Point RD SW NO. 8  |  Olympia, WA 98502
Telephone 360.352.1970  |  Fax 360.357.0844 |  www.jaglaw.net<http://www.jaglaw.net/>
jay at jaglaw.net<mailto:jay at jaglaw.net>

Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice.
The purpose of this email is to transmit a message or document.
Should you not be the intended recipient of this email message,
please reply advising of the mistake and then delete this message
from your computer. Should you have any questions,
please call the Sender at 360-352-1970.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Tom Westbrook
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 12:32 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] lis pendens

IMHO – your client had no legal right to record a Lis Pendens as that is only for circumstances where the issue is about ownership of the property; not a lien. Let the argument begin 😊

A lis pendens is a mechanism for giving notice that a lawsuit that concerns title to real property has been filed. RCW 4.28.320. A lis pendens may be filed “[a]t any time after an action affecting title to real property has been commenced.” RCW 4.28.320. But a party who files a wrongful lis pendens risks liability in damages for doing so. RCW 4.28.328 governs, and it provides in pertinent part,
(a) “Lis pendens” means a lis pendens filed under RCW 4.28.320 . . . or other instrument having the effect of clouding the title to real property, however named. . . .
(2) A claimant in an action not affecting the title to real property against which the lis pendens was filed is liable to an aggrieved party who prevails on a motion to cancel the lis pendens, for actual damages caused by filing the lis pendens, and for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in canceling the lis pendens.
(3) Unless the claimant establishes a substantial justification for filing the lis pendens, a claimant is liable to an aggrieved party who prevails in defense of the action in which the lis pendens was filed for actual damages caused by filing the lis pendens, and in the court’s discretion, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the action.

Washington courts have not established either a specific definition or guiding criteria to determine when and whether an action “affect[s] title to real property.” RCW 4.28.320. But our courts, in construing other aspects of our lis pendens statutes, have relied on persuasive authority from Arizona, whose own lis pendens law is similar to ours. See Schwab v. Seattle, 64 Wn. App. 742, 748, 826 P.2d 1089 (1992). In determining whether a lis pendens was wrongfully recorded, their courts also consider whether the action is one “‘affecting title to real property.’” Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Bartschi, 219 Ariz. 391, 395-96, 199 P.3d 646 (Ct. App. 2008) (quoting ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 12-1191(A)).

Sincerely,

Tom

Thomas J. Westbrook
Attorney at Law

[whiteRKCS_newlogo50_email_sig]

Rodgers, Kee & Card, P.S.
324 West Bay Drive NW, Suite 201
Olympia, Washington  98502

Phone: 360-352-8311
Facsimile: 360-352-8501
Email: tjw at buddbaylaw.com<mailto:tjw at buddbaylaw.com>
Skype: thomas.westbrook
www.buddbaylaw.com<http://www.buddbaylaw.com/>

The information contained in this email and attachment(s) are for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain private, privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the addressee, you are strictly prohibited from reading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this email or its contents in any way. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 360-352-8311 or by e-mail to shannon at buddbaylaw.com<mailto:shannon at buddbaylaw.com>, and destroy the original message from your electronic files.




From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] On Behalf Of Douglas W. Scott
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 11:35 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>) <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] lis pendens

Client filed Lien for excavation work against a subdivision.  I foreclosed on Lien in KC Superior and recorded a Lis Pendens.  Attorney for owner will issue a 1 1/2 times bond and has demanded that the Lis Pendens then be dismissed as it is interfering with sales of the lots or he will claim atty fees under RCW 4.28.328.  I see no need to remove the lis pendens as the bond is supposed to allow the properties to sell since the bond now guarantees payment of any judgment.  Does my client have exposure for not removing the lis pendens after the bond is in place?

Douglas W. Scott
Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott
Windermere Building
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203
Issaquah, Washington, 98027
V.  425.392.8550
F.  425-392-2829
www.davisscottlaw.com<http://www.davisscottlaw.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180226/f1a6d096/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6396 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180226/f1a6d096/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15390 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180226/f1a6d096/image003.jpg>