<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 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I think your basis is contract—Mom and Family agreed to purchase the house together, with her serving as nominee for title and financing purposes because Family can’t get a loan. Even if not provable as a contract, equity could still save
it. The remedy is constructive trust or resulting trust, which might be the key words you are looking for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You might start with <u>Rice v. Kumbera</u>, No. 61031-7-I (Wn.App. Oct. 6, 2008) (unpublished), and cases it cites—<u>Thor v. McDearmid</u>, 63 Wn. App. 193, 817 P.2d 1380 (1991) is an often-cited one.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The issue also comes up a lot in the old meretricious relationship cases, so you see a lot of unmarried couples litigating on this type of claim before
<u>Lindsey</u> overruled <u>Creasman v. Boyle</u> in 1984. But the rules apply to any situation where two parties pool funds to purchase a house but only one of them is on title.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To defeat UD, it might be enough to simply argue that Family has an equitable ownership interest. "Unlawful detainer actions offer a plaintiff the advantage of speedy relief, but do not provide a forum for litigating claims to title."
<u>Puget Sound Investment Group, Inc., v. Bridges</u>, 92 Wn.App. 523, 526, 963 P.2d 944 (1998). Unlawful detainer simply is not applicable in a dispute between co-owners. Where title is disputed, the proper action is for ejectment and quiet title under Ch.
7.28 RCW. <u>Puget Sound Investment Group</u>, 92 Wn.App. at 527. The unlawful detainer action, because of its limited nature, may not be converted into the broader ejectment action; a new action must be started.
<u>Id</u>. at 525-526 (dicta).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That said, I think it’s safest to actually file the lawsuit regarding ownership and use that as the basis for the UD defense. It’s a lot easier to show it as a legitimate defense if there is another pending action to determine title.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric C. Nelsen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sayre Law Offices, PLLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1417 31st Ave South<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seattle WA 98144-3909<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">206-625-0092<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:eric@sayrelawoffices.com"><span style="color:#0563C1">eric@sayrelawoffices.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:aqua;mso-highlight:aqua">Covid-19 Update -
</span></b>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> realprop@googlegroups.com <realprop@googlegroups.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Neumiller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com>; Listserve RealProp (realprop@googlegroups.com) <realprop@googlegroups.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [REALPROP] Equitable Title as Defense to Eviction<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Listmates. Family has bankruptcy so can’t get loan to buy house. So Mom pays down payment and takes title to residence. Mom in one bedroom and family in rest of house. Family has paid all mortgage payments and spent money in fixing,
repairing, and improving the residence. Mom now is trying to evict family based on sharing a portion of the residence under new RCW 59.18.650. I have been spinning my wheels in research regarding defending against a UD action with claims of an equitable
interest in the residence. Is there a seminal case on the establishment of equitable interest in a residence based on expenditures by the parties.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a name="Paul_A__Neumiller"><img border="0" width="250" height="150" style="width:2.6041in;height:1.5625in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D7BA01.C75DDCF0" alt="Paul A_ Neumiller"></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KCBA Real Property" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
<a href="mailto:realprop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">realprop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/realprop/MW3PR13MB3980C985A8A60ACEAB69CDD4D2AF9%40MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/realprop/MW3PR13MB3980C985A8A60ACEAB69CDD4D2AF9%40MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>