Albice v. Premier Mortgage Services of Washington, Inc.
276 P.3d 1277
Wash.2012Background
- Albice and Tecca inherited the property; Tecca borrowed $115,500 in 2003 with Premier as trustee and Option One servicing; default occurred in 2006 leading to a trustee's sale notice for Sept. 8, 2006; forbearance extended payments due through Jan. 16, 2007 and allowed late tendering; last payment was rejected Feb. 2, 2007 and refunded Feb. 16, 2007; sale occurred Feb. 16, 2007 with Dickinson bidding and acquiring the property; Tecca sued to quiet title and Dickinson sought to be a bona fide purchaser; trial court ruled Dickinson was a BFP and sale valid despite defects; Court of Appeals reversed, ordering sale set aside; Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trustee's sale beyond 120 days invalidates the sale | Tecca argued beyond-120-day sale invalidates | Dickinson argued waiver/efficiency considerations favor BFP | Yes, sale invalid past 120 days |
| Whether Tecca waived postsale challenges by not pursuing presale remedies | Tecca could have restrained sale under presale remedies | Waiver applies when timely presale remedies exist and are not pursued | Waiver does not apply under these facts |
| Whether Dickinson can still qualify as a bona fide purchaser despite defects | Dickinson not BFP due to knowledge/defects | Dickinson argues BFP status despite irregularities | No, Dickinson is not a BFP given inquiry notice and irregularities |
Key Cases Cited
- Udall v. T.D. Escrow Servs., Inc., 159 Wash.2d 903 (Wash. 2007) (strict compliance favored; defective process can invalidate sales)
- Plein v. Lackey, 149 Wash.2d 214 (Wash. 2003) (waiver when timely presale remedies not pursued)
- Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wash.2d 383 (Wash. 1985) (stakes of efficiency and stability in foreclosure process)
- Glidden v. Mun. Auth. of Tacoma, 111 Wash.2d 341 (Wash. 1988) (conclusive recitals of compliance under 61.24)