Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Werelius

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 1, 1991No. 12812-8-IIPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWorswick, C.J.

Does the assignee of a purchaser's interest in a real estate contract have standing to commence an action to set aside a forfeiture, when the assignment was made after the notice of intent to forfeit was recorded? The answer plainly is no. We affirm a summary judgment dismissing the action.

*452Mildred Werelius was the vendor under a real estate contract. The original purchasers assigned their interest to Daniel Snook. Snook was later convicted for operating a large amphetamine laboratory on the property. On September 6, 1988, Werelius recorded a notice of intent to forfeit the real estate…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. International Commercial Collectors, Inc. v. Mazel Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1987
  2. Powell v. MossCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Puget Sound National Bank v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Ur-Rahman v. Changchun Development, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  3. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
  4. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
  5. Kofmehl v. SteelmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991

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