[WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

Wed Apr 19 11:49:34 PDT 2023

Nope.  Parcel numbers and street addresses are not enough. Must be a full and accurate legal description

They don’t call me a title geek for nothing!

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: michael westseattleattorney.com<mailto:michael at westseattleattorney.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:23 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

Interesting. I think it was about 40 years ago when I was a Broker, I was told that it was sufficient if the conveyance had the parcel number. The std was something like what would a normal land surveyor use to find the property.

[cid:30916724-1b24-4a5e-a71a-507ebbb44dba]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:33 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

From a trial brief I just filed

If the agreement lacks a proper legal description, it is void.

The statute of frauds for real property provides, “Every conveyance of real estate, or any interest therein, and every contract creating or evidencing any encumbrance upon real estate, shall be by deed … .” RCW 64.04.010<https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=24ded445-176c-452f-9b50-7a2f3d8b9547&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A4VK8-WNS0-TXFX-X21H-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdteaserkey=&pdislpamode=false&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&ecomp=174k&earg=sr1&prid=e0a597d4-d856-4e55-a402-2aa4770e992e>.  Every deed “shall be in writing, signed by the party bound thereby, and acknowledged.” RCW 64.04.020<https://plus.lexis.com/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=0a1b0bdd-c6f5-467d-a82d-8cc6bb91bb44&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A55D0-4NB1-F04M-B05S-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&pdpinpoint=&ecomp=2gntk>.  Deeds of trust must comply with all mortgage laws (RCW 61.24.020) and the real estate statute of frauds.  GLEPCO, LLC v. Reinstra, 175 Wash. App. 545, 554, 307 P.3d 744 (2013) (“Deeds of trust and trustee's deeds are subject to the statute of frauds.”).

It is the unusually strict but well-settled rule in Washington that to comply with these statutes, real estate subject to a conveyance must be described in sufficient detail that the court is not compelled to resort to extrinsic evidence in order to find out what was in the minds of the contracting parties. Martin v. Seigel, 35 Wn.2d 223, 228, 212 P.2d 107 (1949)<https://plus.lexis.com/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=0a1b0bdd-c6f5-467d-a82d-8cc6bb91bb44&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A55D0-4NB1-F04M-B05S-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&pdpinpoint=&ecomp=2gntk>; Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 883-84, 983 P.2d 653<https://plus.lexis.com/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=0a1b0bdd-c6f5-467d-a82d-8cc6bb91bb44&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A55D0-4NB1-F04M-B05S-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&pdpinpoint=&ecomp=2gntk>, 993 P.2d 900 (1999)<https://plus.lexis.com/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=0a1b0bdd-c6f5-467d-a82d-8cc6bb91bb44&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A55D0-4NB1-F04M-B05S-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&pdpinpoint=&ecomp=2gntk>.

Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC, 167 Wn. App. 677, 689-90, 275 P.3d 328, 335 (2012) (emphasis added.).

Washington courts have long held that to comply with the statute of frauds, a deed conveying land must describe the land conveyed in sufficient detail that it can be located without recourse to oral testimony (unless the deed refers to another instrument that does contain a sufficient description). Bigelow v. Mood, 56 Wn.2d 340, 341, 353 P.2d 429 (1960). An agreement containing an inadequate legal description is void. Howell, 28 Wn. App. at 495-96. Washington's rule is “the strictest in the nation … . In most states an incomplete description or a street address is sufficient, and parol evidence may be received to locate the land. Not so in Washington.” 18 William B. Stoebuck & John W. Weaver, Washington Practice: Real Estate: Transactions § 16.3, at 225 (2d ed. 2004).

Maier v. Giske, 154 Wn. App. 6, 15, 223 P.3d 1265 (2010) (Emphasis added.)

In Home Realty Lynnwood, Inc. v. Walsh, 146 Wn. App. 231, 233, 189 P.3d 253 (2008), Division One reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment which relied on the oral testimony of the parties to a purchase and sale agreement.  It stated:

Because we adhere to Washington's strict rule against recourse to oral testimony in determining whether a legal description satisfies the statute of frauds, we reverse the trial court's order granting the Walshes' summary judgment motion.

Id. at 233.

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: Jason Burnett<mailto:jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 8:57 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

I thought I caught him in an error, but PHOOEY!  It’s a recognized alternative spelling.

Jason W. Burnett
Attorney at Law
Reed Longyear Malnati Corwin & Burnett, PLLC
[A black background with white text  Description automatically generated with low confidence]<http://reedlongyearlaw.com/>

801 Second Ave, Suite 1415
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone:  (206) 624‑6271
Fax:       (206) 624‑6672
jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com<mailto:jburnett at reedlongyearlaw.com>
www.reedlongyearlaw.com<http://www.reedlongyearlaw.com/>

[cid:image002.png at 01D9729B.36AFF9A0]<https://www.facebook.com/reedlongyear>[cid:image003.png at 01D9729B.36AFF9A0]<https://twitter.com/ReedLongyear>[cid:image004.png at 01D9729B.36AFF9A0]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/reed-longyear-malnati-&-ahrens-pllc>
The information in this email message may be privileged and confidential.  It is intended only for the use of the recipient named above (or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient).  If you received this in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Sullivan, Brett
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:17 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

Eric, you had me at "Pfui." That was awesome.

Brett T. Sullivan

Attorney at Law

Partner

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4yOUljtOzDnhXCjUiBuPG8Hj6U3HtblY4BFjXug8xSesMpbpAA6U7WWxXOnDSm6h0dzArGezBExbwe0KKhWvqeCuNUqlGzJbMnMRv7h8A]

1403 S. Grand Blvd., Suite 201-S

Spokane, WA  99203-2278

P: (509) 455-3713

D: (509) 828-4642

F: (509) 455-3718

E: brett at lucentlaw.com<mailto:brett at lucentlaw.com>

lucentlaw.com<http://lucentlaw.com/>

Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/lucentlaw>

LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/brettsullivanspokane>

Twitter<https://twitter.com/lucentlaw>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution, or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:53 PM Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>> wrote:

Pfui. Garbage defense. Assertion of the existence of a PSA is an affirmative defense against the eviction because it evades or negates elements necessary to prove UD—whether the occupant is a “tenant” under a “rental agreement” as defined in Title 59. The burden of proof on affirmative defenses is with the defendant. See Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wash.2d 483, 493, 859 P.2d 26 (1993) (the defendant bears the burden of proof “only where it asserts an ‘affirmative defense’ ”); Locke v. City of Seattle, 133 Wash.App. 696, 713, 137 P.3d 52 (2006) (“The burden of proof is ... placed upon the party asserting the avoidance or affirmative defense.”). The fact that he isn’t making a counterclaim is irrelevant.

That said, a contract to purchase real property does not need to be in writing, even though a conveyance or lien (or real estate commission agreement) does—so long as its terms must be completely performed within one year. See the blog post by Babak Shamsi on Beresford Booth’s website<https://beresfordlaw.com/what-is-the-statute-of-frauds/#:~:text=Washington%20State%20affords%20great%20flexibility,to%20have%20an%20enforceable%20agreement.>. So I think the occupant can testify to the alleged contract and how it was formed and what its terms are. (All subject to the trier of fact’s credibility determination, of course, and subject to denial by the plaintiff.)

Might be able to trip them up immediately if they testify to any term that could or would require performance more than a year after formation. If the agreement was for payments to be made over multiple years, that violates RCW 19.36.010(1)<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.36&full=true#19.36.010>. (But note case law about saving an oral contract to purchase real estate by occupancy plus partial performance.)

Since this would be a pretty complex lie to pull off, I’d depose/examine the occupant concerning all the specifics on when and how the agreement was formed—on the phone? in person? when? and then question all the elements of formation and performance – offer, acceptance, consideration, purchase price, payment terms, interest rate, type of deed conveyance, escrow, title insurance company, closing date, any financing required, contingencies, etc., etc., until they’re desperately making up as many random clauses as they can. Ask them if the seller recited the legal description during their completely oral agreement (no emails, no texts, nothing in writing concerning a contract to buy?).

Ask them about contextual/circumstantial evidence of the existence of a contract. After the agreement was made, then what? Did they make payments? Any evidence of those payments? Checks have “installment payment on contract” written on them, or anything like that? Emails from the landlord treating him as a purchaser and not a tenant? Did they make any demands as a tenant, like getting the plumbing repaired or whatever? Ever invoke tenant protections even though supposedly buying the property?

Re the original question about statute of frauds at trial—I’d file a Motion in Limine asking the Court to exclude all evidence/testimony suggesting the existence of a contract in violation of RCW 19.36.010(1). At the least, this puts the issue at the forefront of the judge’s mind.

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 Paul Neumiller
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 3:53 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

NJP attorney is arguing that they don’t have to prove a purchase and sale agreement because title is not the issue.  NJP is arguing that they are presenting the testimony that T is buying the property as a defense that Plaintiff must overcome because Plaintiff has the burden of proof and T is not asserting it as a counter-claim.  Any thoughts?  I’m arguing it is two sides of the same coin.

[cid:image009.jpg at 01D972A2.07149C80]

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 Stromberg, Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 3:00 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigation and Statute of Frauds

I agree with Kelby. I represented a defendant in a UD case several years back who claimed he had an agreement to buy the property, and we lost because we didn't satisfy the statute of frauds. My client had an email or two and his testimony that it was a "rent to own" situation (plaintiff was his sister!). Is it too late for SJ? If discovery hasn't produced a signed agreement that adequately identifies the property and the terms of sale, you should win on SJ. At trial, I don't think there's much weighing of evidence - there's either a written contract or there isn't. If there is a written contract, the judge should then be the one to weigh the evidence as a matter of law only in the event there is some question about whether a written agreement adequately describes the property or the terms.

Spencer A. W. Stromberg

Attorney at Law

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wMRe_ukoUDSfEk1B9GOtzEv1ZmETJ5W4aT8G-i1q6fL7AkhPL9-7Q-uOEqpeS39zB_6R0N47HVfeKJTfKSM6im7XYlsivfchznVeSWqQ]

1403 S. Grand Blvd., Suite 201-S

Spokane, WA 99203-2278

P: 509.455.3713
D: 509.828.4644
F: +1.509.455.3718 (must dial 1 before area code)

E: spencer at lucentlaw.com<mailto:spencer at lucentlaw.com>

lucentlaw.com<https://www.lucentlaw.com/>

Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/lucentlaw>

LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/lucent-law>

Twitter<https://twitter.com/LucentLaw>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution, or use of this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me and delete it from your system.

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:36 AM Kelby Derenick <kelby at derenicklaw.com<mailto:kelby at derenicklaw.com>> wrote:

I would think that whether a contract exists for the sale of the property would be a question of fact.  So, if you are representing the Plaintiff in the trial, when your client testifies and in anticipation of what the Defendant is going to argue, have the Plaintiff provide testimony that there was no contract for the

sale of the property.  Then, after the Defendant is finished with presenting his/her defense and counterclaims and introduces whatever documents into evidence, you can recall your client to provide rebuttal testimony to address whatever the Defendant introduced.  After the evidentiary part of the trial is over, if there was no evidence of a contract, move the court for dismissal of that counterclaim under CR 41 or CR 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law if there is a jury (for non-unlawful detainer trials).

If the judge won't dismiss it, then just argue at closing that the Defendant cannot prevail on the counterclaim because there was no contract and the statute of frauds case law requires a contract (cite and argue statute of frauds case law).

Kelby J. Derenick

Attorney

9414 State Ave., Suite E

Marysville, WA 98270
Ph: (206) 659-5061

14 E. Main Street, Suite 207

Walla Walla, WA 99362

Ph: (509) 676-9805

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This electronic mail message contains information that (a) is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, using, copying, or distributing any part of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact me immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system.  Thank you.

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:07 PM Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com<mailto:pneumiller at hotmail.com>> wrote:

So I have a trial coming up where the occupant says occupant is buying the house and I represent the LL who says the occupant is renting the house and therefore subject to unlawful detainer.  The occupant has little to show that occupant is buying the house and therefore the statute of frauds kicks in.  But how?  Is it a “weight of the evidence type of thing” where the occupant can still present oral testimony and a couple of documents which don’t meet the requirements of the statute of limitations?  Or, can I object (on what grounds?) to the evidence from being presented at trial in the first place because it fails to rise to the level of documentation required by the statute of frauds?  In other words, I have this thing called the statute of frauds.  On a practical basis, how do I use it at trial?

BTW, I have read many sources regarding the statute and none have addressed how it is used at trial.

[cid:image009.jpg at 01D972A2.07149C80]

***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

***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

***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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1750 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1991 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/image003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1826 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/image004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5732DF8D506C49A4A2D496665A197C1F.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9501 bytes
Desc: 5732DF8D506C49A4A2D496665A197C1F.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/5732DF8D506C49A4A2D496665A197C1F.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 36B9F6745B8848B99C26636ED2F01FA0.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13367 bytes
Desc: 36B9F6745B8848B99C26636ED2F01FA0.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/36B9F6745B8848B99C26636ED2F01FA0.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-acghtwx4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 57245 bytes
Desc: Outlook-acghtwx4.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/Outlook-acghtwx4.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5168E9A2C84E46739C8644DBC5495481.png
Type: image/png
Size: 144 bytes
Desc: 5168E9A2C84E46739C8644DBC5495481.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230419/ac294c79/5168E9A2C84E46739C8644DBC5495481.png>