<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Darn. I think the bank wins. But I greatly dislike the doctrine of equitable subrogation of lien priority; it strikes me as a load of hooey invented by the
courts to save the poor, poor banks from having to actually do their due diligence before accepting collateral on a loan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I do think you have better facts than the cited cases, and maybe it's worth negotiating. But I doubt it would win at trial level; it's likely to need a court
of appeals to distinguish from <i>Columbia Community Bank</i>. I don't know of any reported case where the doctrine was argued and the bank
<u>didn't</u> win.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">1320 University St<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Seattle WA 98101-2837<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">phone 206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">fax 206-625-9040<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Josh Grant<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> wsbar; wsbar trust<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Bank Foreclosure - life estate holder granted DOD<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">I have mentioned a client who I am assisting in defending a judicial foreclosure in earlier posts. Some of you said “keep me posted”. This is both a “dirt” and “estate” question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Client’s folks gave client (son) a home, retaining a life estate. About a year later they borrowed on it, they made payments til they died. Title company apparently didn’t notice
the deed to the son when they did a lender’s policy. The parents died way over 2 years ago. The statute of limitations has therefore run on the note.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Bank now says that
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:blue">“You may not realize that the majority of the proceeds from the 1998 loan were used to pay off a prior loan. The prior deed of trust, which secured the earlier loan, was recorded on February
4, 1997, before the quit claim deed conveying the property to son was recorded. [This was the same bank giving the two loans. The loans were then sold to current bank].</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:blue">Under the well-established doctrine of equitable subrogation,. Bank, as successor to lending bank, is subrogated to the first lender’s position. Since the first loan was made at a time when parents
held a fee simple interest in the property, Bank is entitled to step into the position of the first lender and enforce its lien against the property.
<i>See, e.g., Columbia Community Bank v. Newman Park, LLC, </i>177 Wn.2d 566, 304 P.3d 472 (2013);
<i>Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestance Corp., </i>160 Wn.2d 560, 160 P.3d 17 (2007).
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">I have read <em>Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestance Corp.
</em>This is a fight between various banks who have financed the same borrower in subsequent loans and in which the borrower at the time of the loans held the same fee interest in the property. The Court did hold that a subsequent filed deed of trust would
be given a priority over one that was filed in second position reasoning that the 2nd position bank got what it bargained for, i.e. second position.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">My thought is that this may be applicable when the party who did the borrowing continued to have some type of fee interest when he repeatedly borrowed, however, it might not be applicable where a borrower has lost
his fee interest before the subsequent loan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I have read </span><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Columbia Community Bank v. Newman Park, LLC,
</span></i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> This seems a closer case to me. In this case the borrower defrauded the lender. The new loan paid in full an earlier loan (different bank). The borrower didn’t have the authority of the fee owner (
LLC) to take out this new loan and in fact fraudulent changed documents when the loan was given. The court decided that the newest lender took the security position of the 1st lender (who had been paid off) as a matter of equity.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">It seems to me that this may not be controlling here because the son didn’t have anything to do with defrauding the bank and again, in fact there is no evidence parents defrauded anyone (I presume they forgot about
the gift deed) when the newest loan was given, and again the benefited borrower didn’t have the same quality of title when the loans were made.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Anyone have any thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Joshua F. Grant, PS<br>
Attorney at Law<br>
P. O. Box 619<br>
Wilbur, WA 99185<br>
tel 509 647 5578<br>
fax 509 647 2734<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>