Legal Opinion

Millay v. Cam

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1998No. 65177-9PublishedCited by 135 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.

We are asked to clarify the procedures for statutory redemption of real property. Three issues are presented: (1) may a prospective redemptioner toll the statutory redemption period by filing a declaratory judgment action without paying the amount required to redeem, (2) does the filing of a declaratory judgment action substantially comply with the payment requirement in RCW 6.23.040(3) and 6.23.080(1), and (3) if a declaratory action will not substitute for payment, should we grant equitable relief when the redemptioner in possession submits a grossly exaggerated statement of the sum…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Miebach v. ColasurdoWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms and ParolesWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Douchette v. Bethel School District No. 403Washington Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. TaylorWashington Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by135 opinions

  1. State v. RoggenkampWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Millay v. CamWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State v. BreazealeWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. BreazealeWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2017

130 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