[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 97, Issue 22

Sat Oct 22 14:28:59 PDT 2022

As I read RCWs 6.36.010, .020, .025, and 4.56.190, it does not become a judgment, and hence a lien on real property, until it is filed with the superior court clerk of the county in which the property is located. Look at the language in Brown v Garrett, 175 WashApp. 357, at p. 367.      The problem you have is that the title company is free to do whatever it wants, even if it views the situation incorrectly. I have been noting lately that title companies have been more restrictive lately for some reason I am unaware of. You might check with another title company.
Steve

Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave. Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885swhite8893 at aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2022 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 97, Issue 22

Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
    wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
    wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
      (Craig Gourley)
  2. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
      (Catherine Clark)
  3. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true. (Eric Nelsen)
  4. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
      (Craig Gourley)
  5. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
      (Dwight Bickel)
  6. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
      (Catherine Clark)
  7. Re: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true. (Roger Hawkes)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:00:35 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR12MB436233E8CD79B5D70AC865BCAE2D9 at MW3PR12MB4362.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you Cat!!  Much appreciated.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:41 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Oops.  Here is the trial court opinion.

Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

From: Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:38 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: RE: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Not that I am fond of pointing out a loss, but I tried that once.  And it did not work.

Let us know what they say.

Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

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 Craig Gourley
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:19 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Listmates.  A Friday conundrum.  In order to convince a title company to insure a transaction I need to prove something I know to be true but is apparently so basic, nobody has challenged it, thus no case law.  In the case of an out of state judgement we all know you must domesticate it before it can be enforced and RCW 6.36 deals with the filing of a foreign judgement and how it MAY be filed.  Nowhere in the law can we find where says that a foreign judgment MUST be filed before it can be enforced.  Joseph found a case out of Arkansas that is tangentially related but not full on point.  Obviously there are lots of arguments but no authority that we can find that is clear and on point to show the title company.  Judgement creditor out of California just filed a copy of the CA judgement with the Auditor.  Title company wants a court order saying the judgement is not enforceable. Obviously a nonstarter because as soon as we notify the judgement holder of the error of their!
  ways, they will domesticate it. Any handy citations?  Thanks and TGIF

Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
Trustee Services of Washington, Inc
1002 10th St Snohomish, WA 98290
PO Box 1091 Snohomish, WA 98291
360-568-5065  Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/acb1284e/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:10:08 +0000
From: Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <MWHPR19MB1328E55A66B1080916654478A32D9 at MWHPR19MB1328.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?

Catherine ?Cat? Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 12:01 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Thank you Cat!!  Much appreciated.

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 Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:41 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Oops.  Here is the trial court opinion.

Catherine ?Cat? Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

From: Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:38 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: RE: Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Not that I am fond of pointing out a loss, but I tried that once.  And it did not work.

Let us know what they say.

Catherine ?Cat? Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

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 Craig Gourley
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:19 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Listmates.  A Friday conundrum.  In order to convince a title company to insure a transaction I need to prove something I know to be true but is apparently so basic, nobody has challenged it, thus no case law.  In the case of an out of state judgement we all know you must domesticate it before it can be enforced and RCW 6.36 deals with the filing of a foreign judgement and how it MAY be filed.  Nowhere in the law can we find where says that a foreign judgment MUST be filed before it can be enforced.  Joseph found a case out of Arkansas that is tangentially related but not full on point.  Obviously there are lots of arguments but no authority that we can find that is clear and on point to show the title company.  Judgement creditor out of California just filed a copy of the CA judgement with the Auditor.  Title company wants a court order saying the judgement is not enforceable. Obviously a nonstarter because as soon as we notify the judgement holder of the error of their!
  ways, they will domesticate it. Any handy citations?  Thanks and TGIF

Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
Trustee Services of Washington, Inc
1002 10th St Snohomish, WA 98290
PO Box 1091 Snohomish, WA 98291
360-568-5065  Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/d248e829/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:10:36 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <SA1PR05MB78886AD5E1035817DF636333DD2D9 at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I agree with you but I think there is a separate problem: the recording of the CA judgment, even if not enforceable, is nevertheless a document clouding title, so the title company isn't going to insure until that cloud is removed. And of course one way to do that is a lawsuit which takes forever, and the other way is to pay the judgment and get a satisfaction from the creditor. Perhaps a discussion with the title company's underwriter and an indemnity from seller might be enough?

On the question: You could point out that a judgment does not become a lien on real property until it meets the requirements of RCW 4.56.200, which only refers to domestic courts. And a foreign judgment doesn't become a domestic judgment until the requirements of RCW 6.36.025 are met. Even if Ch. 6.36 RCW says a foreign judgment "may" be domesticated, the foreign judgment also can't become a lien on real estate until it is domesticated.

I might also consider whether an improper recording of a foreign judgment amounts to slander of title against the creditor. "Slander of title is defined as: (1) false words; (2) maliciously published; (3) with reference to some pending sale or purchase of property; (4) which go to defeat plaintiff's title; and (5) result in plaintiff's pecuniary loss. Pay 'N Save Corp. v. Eads, 53 Wash.App. 443, 448, 767 P.2d 592 (1989) (citing Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 359, 375, 617 P.2d 704 (1980))." Rorvig v. Douglas, 123 Wn.2d 854, 859-860, 873 P.2d 492 (1994). In this case, the "falsity" is the recording of a judgment that is totally ineffective as a judgment-the creditor might just as well have filed a completely forged judgment with the same effect of clouding title with an unenforceable instrument.

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. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:19 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Listmates.  A Friday conundrum.  In order to convince a title company to insure a transaction I need to prove something I know to be true but is apparently so basic, nobody has challenged it, thus no case law.  In the case of an out of state judgement we all know you must domesticate it before it can be enforced and RCW 6.36 deals with the filing of a foreign judgement and how it MAY be filed.  Nowhere in the law can we find where says that a foreign judgment MUST be filed before it can be enforced.  Joseph found a case out of Arkansas that is tangentially related but not full on point.  Obviously there are lots of arguments but no authority that we can find that is clear and on point to show the title company.  Judgement creditor out of California just filed a copy of the CA judgement with the Auditor.  Title company wants a court order saying the judgement is not enforceable. Obviously a nonstarter because as soon as we notify the judgement holder of the error of their!
  ways, they will domesticate it. Any handy citations?  Thanks and TGIF

Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
Trustee Services of Washington, Inc
1002 10th St Snohomish, WA 98290
PO Box 1091 Snohomish, WA 98291
360-568-5065  Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/068b45f0/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:23:33 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR12MB43629E93E16919CA028ACD05AE2D9 at MW3PR12MB4362.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you to all that responded.  It will be interesting to see where this one ends up.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 12:11 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

I agree with you but I think there is a separate problem: the recording of the CA judgment, even if not enforceable, is nevertheless a document clouding title, so the title company isn't going to insure until that cloud is removed. And of course one way to do that is a lawsuit which takes forever, and the other way is to pay the judgment and get a satisfaction from the creditor. Perhaps a discussion with the title company's underwriter and an indemnity from seller might be enough?

On the question: You could point out that a judgment does not become a lien on real property until it meets the requirements of RCW 4.56.200, which only refers to domestic courts. And a foreign judgment doesn't become a domestic judgment until the requirements of RCW 6.36.025 are met. Even if Ch. 6.36 RCW says a foreign judgment "may" be domesticated, the foreign judgment also can't become a lien on real estate until it is domesticated.

I might also consider whether an improper recording of a foreign judgment amounts to slander of title against the creditor. "Slander of title is defined as: (1) false words; (2) maliciously published; (3) with reference to some pending sale or purchase of property; (4) which go to defeat plaintiff's title; and (5) result in plaintiff's pecuniary loss. Pay 'N Save Corp. v. Eads, 53 Wash.App. 443, 448, 767 P.2d 592 (1989) (citing Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 359, 375, 617 P.2d 704 (1980))." Rorvig v. Douglas, 123 Wn.2d 854, 859-860, 873 P.2d 492 (1994). In this case, the "falsity" is the recording of a judgment that is totally ineffective as a judgment-the creditor might just as well have filed a completely forged judgment with the same effect of clouding title with an unenforceable instrument.

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. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to 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 Craig Gourley
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 11:19 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Listmates.  A Friday conundrum.  In order to convince a title company to insure a transaction I need to prove something I know to be true but is apparently so basic, nobody has challenged it, thus no case law.  In the case of an out of state judgement we all know you must domesticate it before it can be enforced and RCW 6.36 deals with the filing of a foreign judgement and how it MAY be filed.  Nowhere in the law can we find where says that a foreign judgment MUST be filed before it can be enforced.  Joseph found a case out of Arkansas that is tangentially related but not full on point.  Obviously there are lots of arguments but no authority that we can find that is clear and on point to show the title company.  Judgement creditor out of California just filed a copy of the CA judgement with the Auditor.  Title company wants a court order saying the judgement is not enforceable. Obviously a nonstarter because as soon as we notify the judgement holder of the error of their!
  ways, they will domesticate it. Any handy citations?  Thanks and TGIF

Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
Trustee Services of Washington, Inc
1002 10th St Snohomish, WA 98290
PO Box 1091 Snohomish, WA 98291
360-568-5065  Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/21a7b38b/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:37:47 +0000
From: Dwight Bickel <dwight at dwightbickel.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <MW4PR14MB4634E934E1E0C9577E36F4D2BF2D9 at MW4PR14MB4634.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Recording the foreign judgment without compliance with WA law probably is not actionable "slander of title" without proof of malicious intent, such as knowledge it is not effective but done anyway to stop a sale or force a seller to pay to enable the closing.

But there is a statute that can be used to seek damages for the recording of any document not authorized by statute, without such proof of malicious intent.  Read the "other" language of 4.28.328 that extends its effect beyond a Lis Pendens:

RCW 4.28.328
Lis pendens-Liability of claimants-Damages, costs, attorneys' fees.
(1) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Lis pendens" means a lis pendens filed under RCW 4.28.320 or 4.28.325 or other instrument having the effect of clouding the title to real property, however named, including consensual commercial lien, common law lien, commercial contractual lien, or demand for performance of public office lien, but does not include a lis pendens filed in connection with an action under Title 6, 60, other than chapter 60.70 RCW, or 61 RCW;
(b) "Claimant" means a person who files a lis pendens, but does not include the United States, any agency thereof, or the state of Washington, any agency, political subdivision, or municipal corporation thereof; and
(c) "Aggrieved party" means (i) a person against whom the claimant asserted the cause of action in which the lis pendens was filed, but does not include parties fictitiously named in the pleading; or (ii) a person having an interest or a right to acquire an interest in the real property against which the lis pendens was filed, provided that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of such interest or right when the lis pendens was filed.
(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.

Dwight A. Bickel
Real Property Title Advisor
Washington Title Professional
Dwight at DwightBickel.com<mailto:Dwight at DwightBickel.com>
https:/dwightbickel.com
206-484-1976
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/12bb00b9/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:46:41 +0000
From: Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <MWHPR19MB13286F54458F9FB6F1ABE5D5A32D9 at MWHPR19MB1328.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

That is correct oh Great Sage of Title.

Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Dwight Bickel
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 2:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Recording the foreign judgment without compliance with WA law probably is not actionable "slander of title" without proof of malicious intent, such as knowledge it is not effective but done anyway to stop a sale or force a seller to pay to enable the closing.

But there is a statute that can be used to seek damages for the recording of any document not authorized by statute, without such proof of malicious intent.  Read the "other" language of 4.28.328 that extends its effect beyond a Lis Pendens:

RCW 4.28.328
Lis pendens-Liability of claimants-Damages, costs, attorneys' fees.
(1) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Lis pendens" means a lis pendens filed under RCW 4.28.320 or 4.28.325 or other instrument having the effect of clouding the title to real property, however named, including consensual commercial lien, common law lien, commercial contractual lien, or demand for performance of public office lien, but does not include a lis pendens filed in connection with an action under Title 6, 60, other than chapter 60.70 RCW, or 61 RCW;
(b) "Claimant" means a person who files a lis pendens, but does not include the United States, any agency thereof, or the state of Washington, any agency, political subdivision, or municipal corporation thereof; and
(c) "Aggrieved party" means (i) a person against whom the claimant asserted the cause of action in which the lis pendens was filed, but does not include parties fictitiously named in the pleading; or (ii) a person having an interest or a right to acquire an interest in the real property against which the lis pendens was filed, provided that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of such interest or right when the lis pendens was filed.
(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.

Dwight A. Bickel
Real Property Title Advisor
Washington Title Professional
Dwight at DwightBickel.com<mailto:Dwight at DwightBickel.com>
https:/dwightbickel.com
206-484-1976
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/97703644/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:57:16 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <roger at skyvalleylawyers.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.
Message-ID:
    <CO6PR20MB3668E8E9AA107B0A3C65D328D52D9 at CO6PR20MB3668.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Curious whether any of us have won damages in a trial court for such 'slander'??

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 2:47 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

That is correct oh Great Sage of Title.

Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
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.

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 Dwight Bickel
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 2:38 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Difficulty proving what we all know to be true.

Recording the foreign judgment without compliance with WA law probably is not actionable "slander of title" without proof of malicious intent, such as knowledge it is not effective but done anyway to stop a sale or force a seller to pay to enable the closing.

But there is a statute that can be used to seek damages for the recording of any document not authorized by statute, without such proof of malicious intent.  Read the "other" language of 4.28.328 that extends its effect beyond a Lis Pendens:

RCW 4.28.328
Lis pendens-Liability of claimants-Damages, costs, attorneys' fees.
(1) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Lis pendens" means a lis pendens filed under RCW 4.28.320 or 4.28.325 or other instrument having the effect of clouding the title to real property, however named, including consensual commercial lien, common law lien, commercial contractual lien, or demand for performance of public office lien, but does not include a lis pendens filed in connection with an action under Title 6, 60, other than chapter 60.70 RCW, or 61 RCW;
(b) "Claimant" means a person who files a lis pendens, but does not include the United States, any agency thereof, or the state of Washington, any agency, political subdivision, or municipal corporation thereof; and
(c) "Aggrieved party" means (i) a person against whom the claimant asserted the cause of action in which the lis pendens was filed, but does not include parties fictitiously named in the pleading; or (ii) a person having an interest or a right to acquire an interest in the real property against which the lis pendens was filed, provided that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of such interest or right when the lis pendens was filed.
(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.

Dwight A. Bickel
Real Property Title Advisor
Washington Title Professional
Dwight at DwightBickel.com<mailto:Dwight at DwightBickel.com>
https:/dwightbickel.com
206-484-1976
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221021/74b84ec7/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

***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
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 97, Issue 22
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221022/5ad481a7/attachment.html>