<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Torgerson Family Trust v. One Lincoln Tower - Supreme Court of Washington Blog</title>
<link>http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/articles/opinions/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:26:54 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:35:48 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Today&apos;s Opinions: ice rinks and condos</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&amp;filename=804117MAJ"><strong>Estate of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc, No. 80411-7. </strong></a>In 2002, the City entered into a concession agreement with Bremerton Ice Arena (BIA) to build and operate an ice arena on public land. The Haselwoods loaned $3,775,000 to BIA for the project, and BIA gave the Haselwoods a promissory note and a deed of trust. The project failed shortly after it began, and the excavation contractor, &quot;RV&quot; recorded a mechanics lien against BIA and the proposed facility in July 2003. A month later, BIA defaulted on the Haselwood loan and the Haselwoods brought a foreclosure action against BIA and its other creditors. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for RV, finding that the mechanics lien had attached only &quot;to certain improvements to the facility,&quot; but not to the land or BIA itself. It eventually found that the Haselwood's deed of trust was superior to the claims of all of the other creditors.</p>
<p>The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, but found that the mechanic's lien related back to RV's first delivery of equipment and was superior to the Haselwoods' deed of trust. It also reversed an award of attorney fees to the Haselwoods. In an opinion by Justice Sanders and signed by four other Justices, the Court today upholds the Court of Appeals. Justices Stephens and Madsen <a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&amp;filename=804117Co1"><strong>concur</strong></a>, but would not foreclose RV's request for attorney fees. Chief Justice Alexander, joined by Justice Charles Johnson, <a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&amp;filename=804117Di1"><strong>dissents </strong></a>and would find RV's lien inferior to the Haselwoods' deed of trust. (<a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/coaBriefs/index.cfm?fa=coaBriefs.briefsByHearingDate&amp;courtId=A08&amp;year=2008#a20081028"><strong>briefs </strong></a>and <a href="http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2008100035D&amp;TYPE=V&amp;CFID=2438568&amp;CFTOKEN=18788570&amp;bhcp=1"><strong>argument</strong></a>)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&amp;filename=806233MAJ"><strong>Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC, No. 80623-3. </strong></a>The Court of Appeals is affirmed in a unanimous opinion by Justice Sanders. Three real estate agents, Michael Miller, Vicki Ringer, and Joanne Faye Torgerson, were seller's agents for condominiums in One Lincoln Tower, then under construction. Each also contracted to purchase a unit, and their contracts included a provision limiting their remedies for sellers' breach. After some delays in the project and a change of ownership, the seller did breach and the agents sued, asking the court to strike down the remedy-limiting provision. The trial court entered summary judgment for the seller, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is affirmed here as well, with attorneys fees also awarded to the seller. (<a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/coaBriefs/index.cfm?fa=coaBriefs.briefsByHearingDate&amp;courtId=A08&amp;year=2008#a20080923"><strong>briefs </strong></a>and <a href="http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2008090072C&amp;TYPE=V&amp;CFID=2438568&amp;CFTOKEN=18788570&amp;bhcp=1"><strong>argument</strong></a>)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/2009/06/articles/opinions/todays-opinions-ice-rinks-and-condos/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/2009/06/articles/opinions/todays-opinions-ice-rinks-and-condos/</guid>
<category>Bellevue</category><category>Bremerton</category><category>Debra Stephens</category><category>Estate of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena</category><category>Opinions</category><category>Richard Sanders</category><category>Torgerson Family Trust v. One Lincoln Tower</category><category>condominium</category><category>contracts</category><category>mechanics lien</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:26:54 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Trent England</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Tomorrow&apos;s opinions, June 25, 2009</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Washington Supreme Court will issue two rulings tomorrow.</p>
<p><em>Estate of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena</em>, No. 80411-7 (<a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/coaBriefs/index.cfm?fa=coaBriefs.briefsByHearingDate&amp;courtId=A08&amp;year=2008#a20081028"><strong>case briefs</strong></a> and <a href="http://tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2008100035D&amp;TYPE=V&amp;CFID=4983857&amp;CFTOKEN=44561695&amp;bhcp=1 "><strong>arguments</strong></a>). Whether a materialmen&rsquo;s lien that did not attach to public land upon which improvements were made had priority over a deed of trust to the property filed after delivery of the materials giving rise to the lien.<em><br />
</em></p>
<p><em>Torgerson Family Trust v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC</em>, No. 80623-3 (<a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/coaBriefs/index.cfm?fa=coaBriefs.briefsByHearingDate&amp;courtId=A08&amp;year=2008#a20080923"><strong>case briefs</strong></a> and <a href="http://tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2008090072C&amp;TYPE=V&amp;CFID=4983857&amp;CFTOKEN=44561695&amp;bhcp=1 "><strong>arguments</strong></a>). Whether a clause in a real estate purchase and sale contract limiting the remedy for the seller&rsquo;s breach to return of the buyer&rsquo;s deposit money is unconscionable, fails of its essential purpose, or is contrary to public policy.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/2009/06/articles/opinions/tomorrows-opinions-june-25-2009/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/2009/06/articles/opinions/tomorrows-opinions-june-25-2009/</guid>
<category>Estate of Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena</category><category>Opinions</category><category>Torgerson Family Trust v. One Lincoln Tower</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:43:01 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Michael Reitz</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>
