Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sixty-01 Association of Apartment Owners v. Parsons

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

October 21, 2013

SIXTY-01 ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, a Washington non-profit corporation, Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA A. PARSONS and JOHN DOE PARSONS, wife and husband, or state registered domestic partners; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Unknown Occupants of the Subject Real Property; and also all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real estate described in the Complaint herein, Defendants, DANIEL PASHNIAK, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. SIXTY-01 ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, a Washington non-profit corporation, Respohdent/Cross-Appellant,
v.
MARIA A. MALLARINO and JOHN DOE MALLARINO, wife and husband, or state registered domestic partners; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Unknown Occupants of the Subject Real Property; and also all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real estate described in the Complaint herein, Defendants, DANIEL PASHNIAK, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

Order File Date 12/13/13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PUBLISH

The respondent/cross-appellant, Sixty-01 Association of Apartment Owners, has filed a motion to publish herein. The appellant/cross-respondent, Daniel Pashniak, has filed an answer to the motion. The court has taken the matter under consideration and has determined that the motion should be granted.

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion to publish the opinion filed in the above-entitled matter on October 21, 2013, is granted. The opinion shall be published and printed in the Washington Appellate Reports.

Grosse, J.

A purchaser at a sheriff's sale acquires only the right, title, and interest that a debtor has at the time of the sale. Here, the two condominiums purchased at the sheriff's sale were each subject to deeds of trust previously recorded by Bank of America. Because the purchaser is deemed to have constructive notice of recorded deeds of trust, we affirm the trial court's decision confirming the sale of one condominium and reverse the trial court's decision vacating the sale of the other condominium.

FACTS

On November 3, 2011, Sixty-01 Association of Apartment Owners was awarded separate default judgments against Virginia Parsons and Maria Mallarino for failure to pay their condominium assessments.[1] Third party deeds of trust encumbering the Parsons and Mallarino units were recorded in 2007 and 2006, respectively.[2] Separate orders of sale were issued January 13, 2012. Notice of the sheriff's sale was sent to all interested parties, including Bank of America (BOA), the beneficiary under the deeds of trust for both properties. Sixty-01 and BOA entered into separate stipulations and orders, on March 7, 2012 for the Parsons property, and on March 8, 2012 for the Mallarino property. Those stipulations declared that the judgment did not affect the bank's deed of trust interest and that the purchaser at the sheriff's sale took any interest in the condominiums subject to any valid interest of the bank.

The two condominium units were auctioned separately on Friday, March 9, 2012. Daniel Pashniak's bids of $16, 200.00 and $35, 400.00 for the Parsons and Mallarino units were accepted as the high bids. The judgment clerk received the returns on the sale of property and certificates of purchase of real estate on March 16, 2012. On the same day, the judgment clerk mailed the notices of return of the sheriff's sale on real property.

On March 22, 2012, Pashniak sent a notice of appearance and an objection to the confirmation of the sheriff's sale for the Parsons unit, claiming that the order of sale and complaint for judicial foreclosure was confusing as to whether the sheriffs sale rendered the property free of all other indebtedness. Sixty-01 moved to confirm the sale of the Parsons unit on June 6, 2012. The court confirmed the sale of the Parsons unit on June 20, 2012. Sixty-01 moved to confirm the Mallarino sale on June 14, 2012. Notice was sent to Pashniak and interested parties. Pashniak, acting pro se, did not file an objection to the Mallarino sale until April 9, 2012. Pashniak then hired counsel and filed a second objection to confirmation and moved to vacate the sheriff's sale on July 12, 2012. Judge Ronald Kessler vacated the sale on July 23, 2012.

In this consolidated appeal, Pashniak appeals from the confirmation of the sale of the Parsons unit. Sixty-01 appeals from the order vacating the sale of the Mallarino unit.

ANALYSIS

Pashniak argues that he is entitled to withdraw his bid because the default judgments obtained against both Parsons and Mallarino stated that Sixty-01's lien was superior to any other lien, thus misleading him about the existence of properly recorded deeds of trust. He further argues that he was unaware of the last minute filing of the stipulations between BOA and Sixty-01 and thus was not privy to the knowledge that Sixty-01's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.