Legal Opinion

Lake Arrowhead Community Club, Inc. v. Looney

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1989No. 54876-5PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.

A purchaser at a tax foreclosure sale generally acquires title that is clear of all prior encumbrances. As an exception to this rule, RCW 84.64.460 protects recorded appurtenant easements from extinguishment. In Olympia v. Palzer, 107 Wn.2d 225, 728 P.2d 135 (1986), we first addressed the effect of RCW 84.64.460 on covenants. We held that a restrictive covenant requiring the owner to maintain his property as a greenbelt for a planned unit development was akin to a negative easement and, therefore, survived the tax foreclosure sale. We hold in the present case that a covenant requiring the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rodruck v. Sand Point Maintenance CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1956
  2. City of Olympia v. PalzerWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Leighton v. LeonardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979
  4. Feider v. FeiderCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
  5. Winsten v. PrichardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit DevelopmentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  2. In Re Proceedings of King County Foreclosure of LiensWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Dickson v. KatesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  4. Regency Homes Ass'n v. EgermayerNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Buck Mountain Owners' Ass'n v. PrestwichCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013

13 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