Legal Opinion

Hu Hyun Kim v. Lee

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 2001No. 70347-7Published

1DissentSanders, J.

(dissenting) — Accepting the doctrine of equitable subrogation as set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.3 (1997), the majority nevertheless denies its benefits to the PHH Mortgage Services Corporation (PHH). Its analysis begins on an incoherent note:

This is a discretionary review of a Court of Appeals’ decision *94which extended to Yakima Title & Escrow Company the first lienholder position of its insured, ....

Majority at 82.

No, Yakima Title is an insurance company which intervened in this action to defend the asserted legal right of its insured, PHH, to first lien…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Wilkins, Neely & Jones v. GibsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  2. Providence Institution for Savings v. SimsTexas Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Med Center Bank v. FleetwoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
  4. Rock River Lumber Corp. v. Universal Mortgage Corp. of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Smith v. State Savings & Loan Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1985

21 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