PUBLISHED IN PART. DO NOT CITE UNPUBLISHED PORTION. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: |
41470-8 |
Title of Case: |
Columbia Community Bank, Res./cross-app. V. Newman Park, Llc, App./cross-res |
File Date: |
02/22/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Thurston Superior Court |
Docket No: | 10-2-00490-1 |
Judgment or order under review |
Date filed: | 10/22/2010 |
Judge signing: | Honorable Paula K Casey |
JUDGES
------
Authored by | David H. Armstrong |
Concurring: | J. Robin Hunt |
| Jill M Johanson |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Respondent |
| Ben Shafton |
| Attorney at Law |
| 900 Washington St Ste 1000 |
| Vancouver, WA, 98660-3455 |
Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant |
| Thomas Francis Peterson |
| Socius Law Group PLLC |
| 601 Union St Ste 4950 |
| Seattle, WA, 98101-3951 |
|
| Adam Richard Asher |
| SOCIUS LAW GROUP PLLC |
| 601 Union St Ste 4950 |
| Seattle, WA, 98101-3951 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
COLUMBIA COMMUNITY BANK, No. 41470-8-II
Respondent/Cross Appellant, PART PUBLISHED OPINION
v.
NEWMAN PARK, LLC,
Appellant/Cross Respondent.
Armstrong, P.J. -- Joseph Sturtevant borrowed money from Columbia Community Bank,
providing collateral with a deed of trust for the Newman Park, LLC property. To ensure a first
priority position, Columbia paid off Newman Park's existing loan from another bank, Hometown
National Bank, and delinquent property taxes on Newman Park's property. When Sturtevant
defaulted on the loan, Columbia learned that he might not have had authority from Newman Park
to obtain the loan. Columbia then sued Newman Park to enforce the loan security agreement or,
in the alternative, to be equitably subrogated to Hometown's loan to Newman Park.
On summary judgment, the trial court denied Columbia's claim that Newman Park was
liable for the loan Sturtevant had obtained, but the court held that to prevent unjust enrichment,
Newman Park was liable for the amount Columbia paid on the Hometown loan and the delinquent
property taxes. Both parties appeal. Columbia argues that issues of material fact exist as to
whether Sturtevant had actual or apparent authority to obtain the Columbia loan. Newman Park
argues that the trial court erred by subrogating Columbia to Hometown's loan because Columbia
acted as a "volunteer" in making its loan. Finding no error, we affirm.
No. 41470-8-II
FACTS
In October 2004, Sturtevant submitted an application for an employer identification
number on behalf of Newman Park to the secretary of state. He signed the application "Joseph
Sturtevant, Managing Member." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 662. On October 18, Sturtevant also
applied to form a limited liability company (LLC) with the state. Newman Park is a manager-
managed LLC.1
Newman Park has 12 investor-members, including Landmark Development Ventures, Inc.;
Brian and Maya Allen; Rick and Christine Goode; William Lowry; Kurt and Susan Rylander; Jim
and Jean Schroeder; and Jeff and Kathleen Sunshine. All the investor-members had invested with
Sturtevant before. Sturtevant is not, individually, an LLC member.
Landmark initially owned 39 percent of Newman Park; the other members owned 61
percent. Sturtevant is the sole shareholder, director, and officer of Landmark.
I. Newman Park Operating Agreement
Newman Park's operating agreement identifies Sturtevant as the "manager" and
"managing member." CP at 471, 475. In annual reports submitted to the secretary of state,
Sturtevant also referred to himself as "manager," and once as "managing member." CP at 128-
35. The operating agreement does not list Sturtevant as an LLC member; instead, Sturtevant has
only an indirect membership interest through Landmark. The operating agreement provides, in
relevant part:
1.3 Nature of Business. The LLC shall acquire, own, develop, sell and complete
1 A limited liability company is member-managed unless the operating agreement expressly
provides that it is "manager-managed." RCW 25.15.150. "Manager-managed" is a term of art
referring to the choice to have the manager exclusively decide the company's activities. 6 Unif.
Ltd. Liab. Co. Act 203(a)(6) (1996); Rev. 6A U.L.A. 407(a) (2006).
2
No. 41470-8-II
a residential subdivision project known as Newman Park situated in Olympia,
Thurston County Washington, known as follows:
3822 Wiggins Road SE (Tax Parcel 11829330300)
Member Joseph Sturtevant is 100% responsible for satisfactory real estate
development and project completion.
CP at 649.
The operating agreement limits the power of members to borrow money or encumber
company property; no member can: (1) incur liability greater than $25,000; (2) pledge company
property to secure a loan over $50,000; or (3) refinance any obligation leading to aggregate
indebtedness of over $50,000.
II. Newman Park Property
In December 2004, Newman Park purchased real property in Thurston County for
$500,000. Newman Park financed the purchase with a $393,100 loan from Hometown.
Sturtevant provided Hometown with copies of Newman Park's application to form an LLC, the
certificate of formation, and the operating agreement. Newman Park granted Hometown a deed
of trust on the property. The deed to Hometown was executed on Newman Park's behalf and
signed: "Landmark Development Ventures, Inc., Manager of Newman Park LLC By: Joseph A.
Sturtevant, President of Landmark Development Ventures, Inc." CP at 670-77.
Sturtevant also executed a real estate tax affidavit, settlement statement, and closing
instructions on Newman Park's behalf, signing each document as "Joseph Sturtevant, President of
Landmark Development Ventures, Inc., Managing Member." CP at 85-87, 91, 93, 679. He
signed the promissory note as "Landmark Development Ventures, Inc. Manager of Newman Park
3
No. 41470-8-II
LLC By: Joseph A. Sturtevant, President of Landmark Development Ventures, Inc." CP at 699.
In contrast, Sturtevant signed the "Limited Liability Company Resolution to Borrow/Grant
Collateral" as "Joseph A. Sturtevant, Manager of Newman Park LLC." CP at 694.
On February 21, 2005, Sturtevant e-mailed to the investors copies of the LLC formation
application, the certificate of formation, the final closing HUD (Housing and Urban Development)
papers, the deed transferring title to Newman Park, and the deed of trust to Hometown. No
member objected to the documents.
III. Columbia Community Bank Loan to Trinity Development-Northwest, LLC
Sturtevant formed Trinity Development-Northwest, LLC in October 2007. Sturtevant
holds a 95 percent interest in Trinity and Robert Leach holds a 5 percent interest.
In January 2008, Sturtevant sought a loan for Trinity from Columbia. When Sturtevant
met with Bradley Volchok, the assistant vice president of Columbia, to discuss the loan, he told
Volchok that Landmark was the sole member or owner of Newman Park.
On February 1, Columbia sent Sturtevant a commitment letter offering to lend Trinity
between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 as a revolving line of credit. The loan amount depended on
whether Columbia paid off Hometown's loan for the Newman Park property and whether the loan
was secured both by sufficient real estate and a $1,000,000 certificate of deposit.
The loan commitment letter explained that the loan was to "[p]rovide liquidity for real
estate investments and development projects," but it did not specify a project. CP at 288, 297.
The bank included one contingency in the letter:
[A] new appraisal for the Newman Park property and an updated appraisal of Joe
Sturtevant's personal residence, both to be reviewed and accepted by Columbia
Community Bank. The loan officer will visit both sites as well.
4
No. 41470-8-II
CP at 299.
The commitment letter limited the loan to 65 percent of Newman Park's property's
appraised value together with 80 percent of the appraised value of Sturtevant's personal
residence. Further, the commitment letter stated:
Additionally, we would appreciate the opportunity for the deposit relationship with
Landmark Development Ventures, Inc. and other entities, plus your personal
deposit relationship.
CP at 290.
Sturtevant signed and returned the letter to Columbia accepting a loan of $1,500,000
without the $1,000,000 certificate of deposit as additional collateral.
On February 22, Sturtevant sent Columbia an altered copy of Newman Park's operating
agreement, which stated that Landmark owned 100 percent of Newman Park. In addition,
Sturtevant provided Columbia with: (1) the Newman Park certificate of formation; (2) Newman
Park's application to form a limited liability company; (3) a "Limited Liability Company
Resolution to Borrow/Grant Collateral" on Trinity's behalf that Sturtevant signed as "Managing
Member of Trinity"; and (4) a "Corporate Resolution to Grant Collateral/Guarantee" also on
Trinity's behalf that Sturtevant signed as "President/Secretary of Landmark." CP at 343-44, 346.
Sturtevant provided Columbia with Trinity's certificate of formation and operating agreement,
along with Landmark's certificate of incorporation, bylaws, and corporate resolutions.
IV. Deed of Trust
On February 28, Sturtevant executed a promissory note for $1,500,000 to Columbia on
Trinity's behalf. The promissory note required payment of all interest and principal by February
5
No. 41470-8-II
28, 2009. The collateral instrument pledged the Newman Park property as security for the Trinity
loan by granting Columbia a deed of trust. Sturtevant signed the deed of trust as follows:
Grantor:
Newman Park, LLC
Landmark Development Ventures, Inc., member of Newman Park, LLC
By: Joseph A. Sturtevant, President/Secretary of Landmark Development
Ventures, Inc.
CP at 208.
V. Default
Columbia paid off the entire Hometown loan and delinquent property taxes on the
Newman Park property when it made the loan to Trinity. The Newman Park members discovered
the transaction in June 2009. At that time, the members also discovered that Sturtevant had
presented an altered operating agreement to Hometown.
Trinity defaulted on the loan. When Columbia attempted to foreclose on its deed of trust,
it learned about possible problems with Sturtevant's authorityto obtain the loan.
Columbia filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, equitable subrogation, and unjust
enrichment. It sought a declaration that its deed of trust on Newman Park's property was valid
and enforceable. In the alternative, it sought a lien on the Newman Park property under the
doctrines of equitable subrogation and unjust enrichment. Newman Park filed a complaint seeking
a declaration that the deed of trust was invalid and unenforceable. The actions were consolidated.
Newman Park moved for summary judgment, arguing that the deed of trust securing
Trinity's loan was invalid and unenforceable because Landmark had neither actual nor apparent
authority to sign the documents. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that Newman Park's
6
No. 41470-8-II
operating agreement unambiguously named Sturtevant as its manager and that Landmark had no
actual authority to pledge Newman Park's property as security. The court also concluded that
Columbia's apparent authority claim failed because Columbia required a resolution in order to
confirm authority for the loan.
Columbia then moved for partial summary judgment to establish a lien on the Newman
Park property through equitable subrogation or unjust enrichment. The trial court granted the
motion, awarding the bank an equitable lien and judgment in the amount of $491,037.31, plus
interest. Newman Park moved for attorney fees, which the trial court denied because both parties
had prevailed on substantive issues.
Newman Park appeals the trial court's partial summary judgment for Columbia on its
unjust enrichment and equitable subrogation claims. Columbia cross-appeals the trial court's
grant of summary judgment determining the deed was invalid.
ANALYSIS
I. Summary Judgment Standard
We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan
County, 169 Wn.2d 598, 605, 238 P.3d 1129 (2010). A court may grant summary judgment if
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, show there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). In reviewing a summary judgment, we view "'all
facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.'" Fitzpatrick, 169 Wn.2d
at 605 (quoting Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683, 693, 169 P.3d 14 (2007)).
7
No. 41470-8-II
Summary judgment is subject to a burden-shifting scheme. The moving party is entitled to
summary judgment if it submits affidavits establishing it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See Meyer v. Univ. of Wash., 105 Wn.2d 847, 852, 719 P.2d 98 (1986). The nonmoving party
avoids summary judgment when it "set[s] forth specific facts which sufficiently rebut the moving
party's contentions and disclose the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact." Meyer,
105 Wn.2d at 852 (citation omitted). Thus, the nonmoving party may not rely on speculative or
argumentative assertions that unresolved factual issues remain. Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA
Entm't Co., 106 Wn.2d 1, 13, 721 P.2d 1 (1986).
II. Equitable Subrogation
Newman Park argues that the trial court erred in granting Columbia summary judgment on
the basis of equitable subrogation. Newman Park contends that equitable subrogation does not
apply because Washington law limits equitable subrogation in this context to mortgagees
competing for priority and Columbia is not a priority creditor. Further, according to Newman
Park, Columbia is not entitled to relief because it volunteered to make the loan.
The Washington Supreme Court recently adopted Restatement (Third) of Property:
Mortgages § 7.6(a) (1997), which describes equitable subrogation as:
One who fully performs an obligation of another, secured by a mortgage, becomes
by subrogation the owner of the obligation and the mortgage to the extent
necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. Even though the performance would
otherwise discharge the obligation and the mortgage, they are preserved and the
mortgage retains its priority in the hands of the subrogee.
Subrogation is appropriate to prevent unjust enrichment if the person seeking subrogation
performs an obligation under the following circumstances:
(1) in order to protect his or her interest; (2) under a legal duty to do so; (3) on
8
No. 41470-8-II
account of misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence, deceit, or other
similar imposition; or (4) upon a request from the obligor or the obligor's
successor to do so, if the person performing was promised repayment and
reasonably expected to receive a security interest in the real estate with the priority
of the mortgage being discharged, and if subrogation will not materially prejudice
the holders of intervening interests in the real estate.
BNC Mortg., Inc. v. Tax Pros, Inc., 111 Wn. App. 238, 255-56, 46 P.3d 812 (2002).
One purpose of equitable subrogation is to preserve the proper priorities by allowing a
mortgagee who satisfies another mortgagee's loan to take that mortgagee's priority position.
Bank of Am. v. Prestance Corp., 160 Wn.2d 560, 564-65, 160 P.3d 17 (2007). But the doctrine
of equitable subrogation is an equitable remedy that generally applies "to avoid a person's
receiving an unearned windfall at the expense of another." Bank of Am., 160 Wn.2d at 567. And
equitable subrogation may arise when one pays or performs in full an obligation owed by another
and secured by a mortgage. Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6 (cmt. a) (1997).
Newman Park argues that equitable subrogation does not apply because this is not a
creditors' priority dispute. Newman Park focuses on the reference to "priorities" in chapter 7's
title to support its argument. Appellant's Reply Br. at 31. But the Restatement's general
discussion of equitable subrogation and the following example demonstrate that equitable
subrogation applies more broadly than to just setting priorities:
28. Blackacre is owned by A and B, subject to a mortgage held by Mortgagee-1
securing a debt of $100,000. A and B are tenants in common. A approaches
Mortgagee-2 and induces it to make a loan of $150,000, of which $100,000 is
used to pay off the first mortgage in full. The remaining $50,000 is used by A for
other purposes. B is not a party to this transaction, but A forges B's name on the
note and mortgage to Mortgagee-2. Mortgagee-2 is subrogated to the first
mortgage to the extent of $100,000, and can enforce it against B's interest in
Blackacre. Mortgagee-2 is not entitled to subrogation with respect to the
remaining $50,000.
9
No. 41470-8-II
Restatement, supra, § 7.6.
This example illustrates that equitable subrogation applies even when a mortgagee pays off
the only existing mortgage and the question is not one of priorities but whether the new
mortgagee steps into the shoes of the paid-off mortgagee. Moreover, the example is similar to the
facts here where one person encumbers the property of another but without authority to do so,
and misuses some of the loan proceeds; the question then is whether the remaining owner should
be enriched by getting the property debt free.
When Columbia made its loan, Hometown held a deed of trust on the Newman Park
property. To become the first lien holder, Columbia paid Newman Park's loan from Hometown.
Because it fully performed Newman Park's obligation to Hometown, Columbia is equitably
subrogated to the amount it paid. To hold otherwise would give Newman Park a windfall.
Volunteer Rule
Newman Park further argues that equitable subrogation does not apply because Columbia
was a volunteer.
Previously, we recognized the volunteer rule in the context of a commercial loan. BNC
Mortg., Inc., 111 Wn. App. at 254. After our decision in BNC Mortgage, Inc., 111 Wn. App.
238, the Washington Supreme Court considered the volunteer rule in Bank of America, 160
Wn.2d 560. In Bank of America, the Court held that equitable subrogation was available in the
refinance context and, as previously discussed, adopted Restatement (Third) of Property
Mortgages § 7.6, which rejects the "volunteer" rule. Bank of Am., 160 Wn.2d at 560-64. And
our Supreme Court did not limit its adoption of the Restatement or attempt to preserve the
10
No. 41470-8-II
volunteer rule. We now conclude that the volunteer rule is no longer a defense where a
mortgagee pays off another mortgage holder. We therefore affirm the order granting partial
summary judgment to Columbia on the basis of equitable subrogation.
A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will
be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public record
in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
III. Deed of Trust -- Sturtevant's authority
Columbia argues that the trial court erred in granting Newman Park summary judgment
because both Sturtevant and Landmark had actual or apparent authority to execute the deed of
trust. Newman Park responds that the deed of trust is invalid as a matter of law because
Landmark was not an agent of Newman Park and it had no authority to execute the deed of trust
to Columbia.
Sturtevant signed the deed of trust as the president and secretary of Landmark, not as the
manager of Newman Park:
Grantor:
Newman Park, LLC
Landmark Development Ventures, Inc. member of Newman Park, LLC
By: Joseph Sturtevant, President/Secretary of Landmark Development Ventures,
Inc.
CP at 208.
According to the operating agreement, Landmark is a member, but not a manager, of
Newman Park. The parties dispute, however, whether Sturtevant or Landmark executed the deed
of trust as an agent with authorityto act on Newman Park's behalf.
11
No. 41470-8-II
A. Actual Authority
An LLC can act only through its agents. Marina Condo. Homeowner's Ass'n v. Stratford
at the Marina, LLC, 161 Wn. App. 249, 263, 254 P.3d 827 (2011). An LLC may be member-
managed or manager-managed. RCW 25.15.150. A nonmember manager has power to manage
the LLC's business or affairs specified in the LLC agreement. RCW 25.15.150(2). Further, if the
certificate of formation vests management of the limited liability company in a manager or
managers, no member, acting solely in the capacity as a member, is an agent of the LLC. RCW
25.15.150(3).
Actual authority may be express or implied. King v. Riveland, 125 Wn.2d 500, 507, 886
P.2d 160 (1994), superseded by statute on other grounds. Implied actual authority depends on
objective manifestations from the principal to the agent. King, 125 Wn.2d at 507. An agent
acting with actual authority binds the principal. Blake Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Saxon, 98 Wn.
App. 218, 223, 989 P.2d 1178 (1999).
Columbia asserts that RCW 25.15.150(3) does not prevent a member, who is also a
manager, from acting as an agent under his member status. Columbia cites no authority for this
proposition, which would allow a member to act for the LLC where the LLC operating agreement
names a nonmember manager. Nor does Columbia cite authority for its contention that a
nonmember manager, such as Sturtevant, can act on a member's behalf alone and still bind the
LLC. See RAP 10.3(a)(6). Here, Landmark is only a member of Newman Park, and it is a
business entity separate from Sturtevant, the designated nonmember manager of Newman Park.
Newman Park's operating agreement specifically named Sturtevant as manager. But
12
No. 41470-8-II
Sturtevant was not acting as a manager when he executed the deed of trust to Columbia; rather,
he signed the instrument on Landmark's behalf as a member of Newman Park. Sturtevant's
signature on Landmark's behalf as a member did not bind Newman Park because Landmark had
no actual authority as a matter of law. See RCW 25.15.150(3).
The trial court did not err in ruling that Landmark was not an agent of Newman Park and
had no authorityto execute the deed of trust. The deed of trust was, therefore, invalid as a matter
of law.
B. Apparent Authority
Columbia argues that both Sturtevant and Landmark had apparent authority to act on
Newman Park's behalf. Because the deed of trust is signed by Landmark as a member, the issue
is whether Newman Park made objective manifestations to Columbia that Landmark had authority
to obtain the Columbia loan. Columbia asserts that disputed issues of material fact preclude
summary judgment on the issue. We hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment
in Newman Park's favor because Landmark did not have apparent authority to execute the deed
of trust to Columbia.
An agent has apparent authority to act for a principal only when the principal makes
objective manifestations of the agent's authority "to a third person." King, 125 Wn.2d at 507.
While apparent authority can be inferred from the principal's actions, there must also be evidence
that the principal knew of the agent's act. State v. French, 88 Wn. App. 586, 595, 945 P.2d 752
(1997). To create apparent authority, a principal's objective manifestations must (1) cause the
one claiming apparent authority to actually believe the agent has authority to act for the principal,
13
No. 41470-8-II
and (2) the claimant's actual belief must be objectively reasonable. King, 125 Wn.2d at 507
(citing Smith v. Hansen, Hansen, & Johnson, Inc., 63 Wn. App. 355, 364, 818 P.2d 1127
(1991)). To prevail, Columbia must prove that Newman Park, the alleged principal, made
objective manifestations to Columbia, the third party, that caused it to subjectively and reasonably
believe that Landmark, the alleged agent, had authority to execute the deed of trust.
In Kiniski v. Archway Motel, Inc., 21 Wn. App. 555, 586 P.2d 502 (1978), Division One
of this court found no corporate liability based on apparent authority when two corporate
directors signed documents in their individual capacities. Kiniski entered into a loan transaction
with the Thorstads, who held two of the three corporate director positions at Archway Motel,
Inc. Kiniski, 21 Wn. App. at 557. The Thorstads signed all the loan documents, including a
promissory note and mortgage, in their individual capacity. Kiniski, 21 Wn. App. at 558. Kiniski
did not ask about the actual ownership of the motel; she assumed that the Thorstads owned the
property individually because the Thorstads lived on the motel property and said they owned it.
Kiniski, 21 Wn. App. at 563-64. After the Thorstads defaulted on the loan, Kiniski discovered
that the motel was a corporation and not the Thorstads' individual property. Kiniski, 21 Wn.
App. at 558-59. Because the corporation had done nothing to suggest it was authorizing the
transaction, the court concluded that Kiniski failed to prove the Thorstads acted with apparent
authorityon the corporation's behalf. Kiniski, 21 Wn. App. at 564.
Similarly, the issue here is the capacity in which Sturtevant signed the deed of trust.
Before entering into this transaction, Sturtevant sent Columbia an altered copy of Newman Park's
operating agreement, which stated that Landmark owned 100 percent of Newman Park. The
14
No. 41470-8-II
altered operating agreement does state that Sturtevant is the manager of Newman Park. And
Sturtevant gave Columbia Newman Park's certificate of formation and its application to form an
LLC, which showed that the LLC was electing to be manager-managed. Columbia reasons that
by naming Sturtevant "manager," Newman Park conveyed to third parties that Sturtevant was an
agent who could act on the LLC's behalf. The argument fails for several reasons.
First, Columbia had agreed to make the loan before it received the altered operating
agreement on February 22. On February 1, Columbia sent Sturtevant the commitment letter,
which stated that the bank "has approved a commitment" for credit to Trinity and required only
Sturtevant's acceptance. CP at 288-91. Thus, Columbia could not have believed and relied on
the altered documents when it agreed to make the loan.
Second, Sturtevant did not sign the deed of trust as Newman Park's manager. He signed
on Landmark's behalf, as a member. And nothing in Newman Park's operating agreement
represented that Landmark was Newman Park's manager. In fact, the documents Sturtevant
supplied showed that he was the nonmember manager of Newman Park. Finally, Columbia
presented no evidence that it relied on Hometown's deed of trust, which Sturtevant signed in the
same manner.
The trial court found that Columbia's request for an LLC resolution from Newman Park
evidenced the bank's concern about who had authority to act, undermining the bank's later
apparent authority argument. Like the deed of trust, Sturtevant signed the resolution to grant
collateral as president and secretary of Landmark, member of Newman Park. The resolution does
not represent that Sturtevant was signing as Newman Park's manager.2
2 Newman Park submits that when a lender requires a resolution to borrow or grant collateral,
15
No. 41470-8-II
Columbia failed to present evidence that Landmark had apparent authority to execute the
loan or that Newman Park made objective manifestations to Columbia of such authority as would
bind Newman Park to Trinity's loan from Columbia. The trial court did not err in granting
summary judgment to Newman Park on the issue.
C. Ratification
Columbia also broadly asserts that Newman Park ratified Landmark's grant of a deed of
trust to Hometown. But Newman Park's ratification of a single, prior transaction does not show
that Landmark acted with authority in the loan transaction with Columbia. Because there is no
evidence that Columbia relied on Landmark's signature on the Hometown deed of trust, this
argument fails.
Under agency law, a principal can ratify an agent's unauthorized act by, with full
knowledge of the act, accepting its benefits or intentionally assuming without inquiry its
obligation. Stroud v. Beck, 49 Wn. App. 279, 286, 742 P.2d 735 (1987). The principal's
constructive knowledge of the act may be sufficient to prove ratification. Stroud, 49 Wn. App. at
286.
In Stroud, the plaintiffs received copies of all the legal documents facilitating a purchase of
apartments secured by a promissory note and deed of trust in the sellers' favor. Even though the
plaintiffs did not read the documents, we held that they ratified their agent's authority by
assuming the obligation without inquiry and by accepting tax benefits without question. Stroud,
49 Wn. App. at 286.
apparent authority is absent, citing to National Bank of Bossier City v. Nations, No. 16826-CA,
465 So. 2d 929 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1985). However, as Newman Park concedes, no Washington
case supports this bright line rule.
16
No. 41470-8-II
Here, in contrast, Columbia presented no evidence that Newman Park knew Sturtevant
had fraudulently obtained the loan until a year after the transaction. Newman Park's members
discovered the transaction only when Trinity defaulted on the loan and Columbia started
foreclosure proceedings. Nor is there evidence that Newman Park members received any benefit
from the loan.3
D. Doctrine of Comparative Innocence
Columbia argues that factual issues exist as to which party should bear the risk of
Sturtevant's actions. Specifically, Columbia urges us to use "comparative innocence" principles
to validate the deed of trust. Br. of Cross Appellant at 48. Newman Park responds that if there is
no agency, comparative innocence does not apply. The trial court concluded that comparative
innocence did not apply as a matter of law because Landmark did not have agency authority.
The comparative innocence doctrine provides that where two innocent persons must suffer
because of a third person's fraud, the loss should fall on the "innocent" party who enabled the
fraud. Sorenson v. Pyeatt, 158 Wn.2d 523, 542 n.16, 146 P.3d 1172 (2006) (citing Stohr v.
Randle, 81 Wn.2d 881, 882, 505 P.2d 1281 (1973). But to apply the doctrine, the evidence must
clearly show that the party to suffer the loss acted with some voluntary "act or neglect" that made
the fraud possible. Stohr, 81 Wn.2d at 883.
In Bergin v. Thomas, 30 Wn. App. 967, 972, 638 P.2d 621 (1981), Division Three of our
court refused to apply comparative innocence where no agency existed. The Thomases sold their
clothing store to their son Greg and his wife, Shelly. Bergin, 30 Wn. App. at 968. Mrs. Thomas
3 Because of our application of equitable subrogation, Newman Park owes Columbia the same
amount it would have owed Hometown.
17
No. 41470-8-II
testified that she might have informed the existing creditors of the change. Bergin, 30 Wn. App.
at 968. Greg told the salesman of a distributor that he owned the clothing store; the salesman
suggested, however, that he should not disclose this fact for credit reasons. Bergin, 30 Wn. App.
at 968-69. Later, Greg and Shelly defaulted on their obligation to the distributor and its assignee
sued them and the Thomases. Bergin, 30 Wn. App. at 969. The court reasoned that because the
Thomases did not induce or mislead the third party into believing that Greg was their agent, there
was no apparent agency.4 Bergin, 30 Wn. App. at 972. And because there was no agency, the
doctrine of comparative innocence was inapplicable. Bergin, 30 Wn. App. at 969, 972.
We need not reach the issue of whether the doctrine of comparative innocence applies
only if there is a finding of agency. Here, there is no evidence that Newman Park acted with some
voluntary "act or neglect" that made the fraud possible. See Stohr, 81 Wn.2d at 883. Under
these circumstances, comparative innocence does not apply.
IV. Attorney Fees
Columbia's deed of trust provides for attorney fees to the prevailing party "at trial and
upon any appeal." Br. of Resp't at 49; CP at 521. The trial court denied Newman Park's motion
for attorney fees.5 On appeal, both parties seek attorney fees under RAP 18.1. The issues are,
first, which party prevailed and, second, what effect, if any, the deed of trust has on the grant of
4 In dicta, the court stated that even if agency was ostensibly found, Greg put the salesman of the
distributor on notice and this information should be imputed to the principal. Bergin, 30 Wn.
App. at 971-72. Therefore, the court determined that neither of the two parties was innocent.
Bergin, 30 Wn. App. at 972.
5 Newman Park assigns error to the trial court's denial of its attorney fees. But Newman Park
provides neither argument nor citation to authority to support the claimed error. RAP 18.1(b).
Newman Park does not properly argue for attorney fees on appeal.
18
No. 41470-8-II
attorney fees.
A prevailing party may recover attorney fees authorized by statute, equity, or the parties'
agreement. Thompson v. Lennox, 151 Wn. App. 479, 484, 212 P.3d 597 (2009). The prevailing
party in a contract action is entitled to attorney fees if the contract authorizes such an award.
RCW 4.84.330.6 We can award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party even when we
have declared the contract containing the attorney fee provision invalid. Labriola v. Pollard
Grp., Inc., 152 Wn.2d 828, 839, 100 P.3d 791 (2004).
A party is generally a prevailing party if he receives an affirmative judgment in his favor.
Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn.2d 612, 633, 934 P.2d 669 (1997). If neither party wholly prevails then
the substantially prevailing party can recover attorney fees. Piepkorn v. Adams, 102 Wn. App.
673, 686, 10 P.3d 428 (2000). In some instances, if both parties prevail on major issues, the
court may find neither party to be the prevailing party and, thus, neither is entitled to attorney
fees. Phillips Bldg. Co., Inc. v. An, 81 Wn. App. 696, 702, 915 P.2d 1146 (1996).
In support of their respective positions, the parties point to the various claims and
amounts at issue. Newman Park argues that if we hold the deed of trust is invalid, it is the
prevailing party. Newman Park further argues it is the substantially prevailing party because
invalidating the deed of trust reduced Columbia's claim against the land and eliminates most of the
6 RCW 4.84.330 states:
In any action on a contract or lease . . . where such contract or lease specifically
provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce the
provisions of such contract or lease, shall be awarded to one of the parties, the
prevailing party, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or lease or
not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to costs and
necessary disbursements.
19
No. 41470-8-II
Trinity loan from Columbia's claim.7 Columbia responds that if it "prevails on appeal it is entitled
to costs and its reasonable attorneys' fees." Br. of Resp't at 49.
The trial court denied Newman Park's motion for attorney fees because both parties had
prevailed on substantive issues. On appeal, both parties again prevail on major issues. Newman
Park prevails as to validity of the deed of trust. But Columbia prevails on its equitable
subrogation claim. We conclude that we cannot fairly declare either Columbia or Newman Park
the prevailing party. Thus, neither is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
Affirmed.
Armstrong, P.J.
We concur:
Hunt, J.
Johanson, J.
7 Newman Park cites Rowe v. Floyd, 29 Wn. App. 532, 535 n.4, 629 P.2d 925 (1981), in support
of its assertion that we should consider Newman Park the substantially prevailing party. In Rowe,
however, Division Three of this court upheld the trial court's order finding each party responsible
for its own costs and attorney fees because both parties prevailed. Rowe, 29 Wn. App. at 535-36.
20
|