<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Folks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have a situation where the grant in a fulfillment deed does not match the grant in the recorded real estate contract. In particular, the real estate contract grants certain property legally described. A subsequently recorded addendum includes certain other rights that are probably easements. However, the fulfillment deed does not include the easements.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The question is whether the doctrine of merger applies to deny the grantee the easements? Let’s assume that none of the merger exceptions (fraud, mistake, subsidiary to the deed, etc.) apply. If this were a purchase and sale agreement instead of a recorded real estate contract, then merger would apply. Is there anything different about a recorded real estate contract, to which Chapter 61.30 RCW applies, that would make the real estate contract more akin to the granting deed and the fulfillment deed more like a reconveyance for purposes of the merger doctrine?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for any help.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> Steve<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>