Legal Opinion

Felt v. McCarthy

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 12, 1996No. 63317-7PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDolliver, J.

— Defendants defaulted on a promissory *205note that was given to Plaintiffs as part of the purchase price for a nine-acre lot, and Plaintiffs sued to enforce the note. Defendants claim "frustration of purpose” excuses them from making further payments on the note because newly-enacted wetlands regulations prevented them from developing the land as a business park. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Dona and Charles Felt owned a nine-acre lot, which was dissected in the middle by the North Creek. The lot was zoned Rural…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Washington State Hop Producers, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Goschie Farms, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co. v. Stoneway Concrete, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Dutton v. DuttonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ner Tamid Congregation of N. Town v. KrivoruchkoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009
  2. Lewis v. BoehmCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  3. Lambert v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (In Re Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 2005
  4. Felt v. McCarthyWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Fitness International, Llc, V. National Retail Properties, LpCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2023

2 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