Legal Opinion

R.O.I., Inc. v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 15, 1988No. 7859-1-IIIPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGreen, J.

R.O.I., Inc., brought this action to quiet title to certain property that its predecessors in interest purchased at a lien foreclosure sale. Summary judgment was entered for R.O.I. Hinton and Steel, Inc. (H & S), a judgment creditor, appeals.

H & S asserts it had neither actual nor constructive notice of the lien foreclosure action — a lis pendens not having been filed. H & S contends its judgment lien, although derived from a general creditor status and obtained after the foreclosure action was commenced, is a viable lien against the R.O.I. property. Resolution of this contention requires a…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lamont v. . CheshireNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Dawson v. McCartyWashington Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Neill v. GrinerWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Merrick v. PattisonWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  5. May v. SutherlinWashington Supreme Court · 1906

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian NationCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
  2. Cranwell v. MesecCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
  3. In Re Proceedings of King County Foreclosure of LiensWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  4. United Savings & Loan Bank v. PallisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  5. United Savings and Loan Bank v. PallisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API