Inglewood Holdings Llc v. Jones Engineers, Inc.
74566-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- In 2008 Jones Engineers, Inc. (JEI) sued Derek Stebner and various "Stebner Entities" on a contract; the trial court found Stebner acted for the entity defendants and entered judgment against "Derek R. Stebner, Stebner Entities" and some named entities.
- JEI recorded that judgment and an accompanying coversheet that listed multiple real properties belonging to several companies (Inglewood Holdings and affiliated LLCs), putting the judgment and coversheet on the recorded chain for those properties.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but called the "Stebner Entities" reference an inadvertent error and remanded to amend the judgment to delete "Stebner Entities." JEI later obtained an amended judgment deleting that reference.
- Inglewood sued JEI and related parties in 2015 to quiet title, for slander of title, and for negligence, seeking removal of the recorded judgment and coversheet as clouds on title and damages for lost transactions.
- The trial court granted JEI's summary judgment motion (dismissing all claims) and denied Inglewood's CR 56(f) continuance request; Inglewood appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quiet title claim is moot | Inglewood: not moot because the original judgment and coversheet remain on recorded title and continue to cloud property despite an amended judgment | JEI: moot because the judgment was amended to remove "Stebner Entities" and JEI asserts no present claim to the properties | Reversed — not moot: court can provide effective relief by ordering removal of the judgment and coversheet from the record title |
| Whether Inglewood raised triable issues on slander of title | Inglewood: JEI's recording was false/malicious, disrupted pending sales and caused pecuniary loss | JEI: Inglewood lacks evidence of pecuniary loss causally linked to the recording | Affirmed — summary judgment proper because Inglewood offered only conclusory evidence (Stebner's affidavit) and no competent proof of damages |
| Whether negligence claim survived summary judgment | Inglewood: argued negligence generally (no developed argument on appeal) | JEI: summary judgment appropriate | Affirmed — Inglewood waived appellate challenge by failing to brief argument or authority |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying CR 56(f) continuance | Inglewood: needed more time to depose defendants and obtain evidence of malice/damages | JEI: Inglewood delayed and offered no good cause or explanation for waiting to take depositions | Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion because Inglewood failed to show good cause or state what discovery would produce |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (Wash. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249 (Wash. 1985) (mootness: case is moot when court cannot provide effective relief)
- Robinson v. Khan, 89 Wn. App. 418 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (quiet title relief may remove clouds; recorded documents can be clouds even if not true encumbrances)
- Rorvig v. Douglas, 123 Wn.2d 854 (Wash. 1994) (elements of slander of title and attorney fee rule for successful slander of title plaintiff)
- Coogle v. Snow, 56 Wn. App. 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (standards for denying a CR 56(f) continuance)