[WSBARP] Cross-claim necessary in interpleader action for EM only?

[Paul Neumiller]

OUCH!


[cid:image001.jpg at 01D6497C.10C0EE20]

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.

E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.


From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeanne Dawes
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:54 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Cross-claim necessary in interpleader action for EM only?

Eric, I had one of these a few year's back and ran into the same silence that you are discovering on how to proceed.  What I did was a to request that a judge be assigned, then I did a Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum and noted it for hearing.  The best thing I can say is that "it worked."  We did get the earnest money deposit back.  Attorney fees was another matter.  The trial judge awarded my client attorney fees.  The defendant appealed and it went up to Div. III who reversed.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwaco20180502m16<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.leagle.com%2Fdecision%2Finwaco20180502m16&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf85aa65f74354e30ba5a08d817c907ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637285499473313479&sdata=54WwFCcAXLu6UsnbS5OozPiqkmMt%2Fc7V2pJ52sBSOns%3D&reserved=0>

Jeanne

Jeanne J. Dawes
Attorney at Law
Gore & Grewe, P.S.
103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99207-2317
Voice:  509-326-7500
Fax:      509-326-7503
jjdawes at goregrewe.com<mailto:jjdawes at goregrewe.com>

[cid:image005.jpg at 01D6497C.0BE556C0]
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:32 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Cross-claim necessary in interpleader action for EM only?

That's what I want to hear, to be sure-but I keep butting up against a silence in the civil rules, and an implication in the statutes that seems to contemplate a trial of the issues. And to me, a trial implies a necessity for joinder of pleadings setting out the claims.

RCW 4.08.180<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapp.leg.wa.gov%2FRCW%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fcite%3D4.08.180&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf85aa65f74354e30ba5a08d817c907ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637285499473323471&sdata=8JATA86YWxIT7s0orQU5NX%2BUcc3dfgBghTYgvau4r4o%3D&reserved=0>
Action to determine conflicting claims to property-Trial of issue.
Either of the defendants may set up or show any claim or lien he or she may have to such property, money, or indebtedness, or any part thereof, and the superior right, title, or lien, whether legal or equitable, shall prevail.
The court or judge thereof may make all necessary orders, during the pendency of said action, for the preservation and protection of the rights, interests, or liens of the several parties.
[ 2011 c 336 § 78;<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flawfilesext.leg.wa.gov%2Fbiennium%2F2011-12%2FPdf%2FBills%2FSession%2520Laws%2FSenate%2F5045.SL.pdf%3Fcite%3D2011%2520c%2520336%2520%25C2%25A7%252078%3B&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf85aa65f74354e30ba5a08d817c907ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637285499473333465&sdata=6tJMlyMzBWUG4KlpS27X7%2BmprKD6QFqUBDyuRQDPiLY%3D&reserved=0> 1890 p 94 § 3;<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fleg.wa.gov%2FCodeReviser%2Fdocuments%2Fsessionlaw%2F1890c94.pdf%3Fcite%3D1890%2520p%252094%2520%25C2%25A7%25203%3B&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf85aa65f74354e30ba5a08d817c907ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637285499473333465&sdata=Q0lhLWFRTZt9KHYKz0dr6GpvXNN9XvtspD%2BKlOlMNWM%3D&reserved=0> RRS § 201.]

A motion would be easier, and maybe if the issue can be resolved as a matter of law on undisputed facts, a motion could be sufficient. But if there is any factual dispute, I'm not sure how to set it up for the court other than by filing a formal cross-claim and forcing an answer from the other defendant.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.

MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Tom Westbrook
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:14 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Cross-claim necessary in interpleader action for EM only?

Eric, sorry to be late to the party. Without seeing the Interpleader complaint, and expecting it to look similar to ones I have been involved, if the parties and claims or issues are identified, then I agree with Kary and think you do not need to cross claim. I would just put in a notice of appearance and file a motion for delivery of the funds to my client with factual and legal argument.

Sincerely,

Tom

Thomas J. Westbrook
Attorney at Law

[cid:image006.jpg at 01D6497C.0BE556C0]

Rodgers Kee Card & Strophy, 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<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buddbaylaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf85aa65f74354e30ba5a08d817c907ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637285499473343463&sdata=PfljJXw395gsDIHxn%2FWFHtmew2z2uM5tuBbmsY1tl44%3D&reserved=0>

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> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 6:26 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Cross-claim necessary in interpleader action for EM only?


One of the things I recall from Civ Pro is that there is no such thing as a compulsory cross-claim.

I don't see stating the facts that give rise to the claim to the money being in the nature of a cross claim.  Is an Interpleader more of an In Rem proceeding?

Kary L. Krismer

206 723-2148
On 6/22/2020 4:55 PM, Eric Nelsen wrote:
Civil Procedure exam here-

Earnest Money is paid via interpleader to the Court. Buyer and Seller are both defendants fighting about the EM, and let's assume that is the sole fight-who gets the EM. No possible claim for specific performance or additional damages beyond the EM.

In order to get complete joinder between the parties, since the Complaint really says nothing about the nature of the claim between the Buyer and Seller, is it necessary for the Buyer and Seller to allege cross-claims against each other in their Answers to the Complaint? (And so incur an additional $240 filing fee each, at least in King County.)

I think yes, based on general civil pleading rules? But it seems crazy that there needs to be three filing fees paid for every interpleader action.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.

MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.



***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***



_______________________________________________

WSBARP mailing list

WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf85aa65f74354e30ba5a08d817c907ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637285499473343463&sdata=juHXVY4VISlY3Evg%2FZxWbbB71l15aLHmvYlbVU9jdeM%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200623/6cf987af/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9460 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200623/6cf987af/image005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3745 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200623/6cf987af/image006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12625 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200623/6cf987af/image001.jpg>