Michael L. Roesch v. Carl Bohm And Candy Bohm
48083-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Michael Roesch owned the 72nd Street Sumner property (the Roesch property); Carl and Candy Bohm (the Bohms) and Candy’s parents (the Rudolphs) entered into a series of interrelated real estate transactions with Michael’s brother Fred that resulted in the Bohms and Rudolphs moving onto the Roesch property in 2009.
- Closings were conditioned on Fred reselling or refinancing the Rudolph property so Fred could pay off mortgages on the Roesch property; the required resale/refinance never occurred and the Roesch sale never closed.
- The Bohms lived on the Roesch property and made monthly “house payments” (roughly $790) to Fred (not to Michael); they stopped paying Fred in September 2012 and never paid rent to Michael.
- Michael sued the Bohms in unlawful detainer (seeking possession and unpaid rent). The trial court limited the case to whether an enforceable lease existed and whether the Bohms were excused from paying rent; counterclaims and claims beyond possession were dismissed as outside unlawful detainer jurisdiction.
- At trial the Bohms presented REPSAs and addenda and testimony (including a broker) showing that Fred had agreed to pay off mortgages and breached that obligation, and that this breach provided a legal justification for their nonpayment.
- The jury found the Bohms were "excused from making rental payments on the [l]ease," the unlawful detainer claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the trial court awarded attorney fees to the Bohms; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roesch) | Defendant's Argument (Bohms) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court exceeded unlawful detainer subject-matter jurisdiction by admitting REPSAs/addenda and letting the Bohms present an equitable defense | Admission and instruction on agreements exceeded the limited scope of unlawful detainer (possession only) and risked litigating title | The Bohms’ equitable defense (excuse for nonpayment based on Fred’s breach) "arises out of the tenancy" and is permissible because it bears on right to possession/nonpayment | Court held the defense was within unlawful detainer jurisdiction; admission and instructions were proper |
| Whether admission of REPSA/addenda exhibits was improper | Exhibits concerned agreements that had expired and implicated title, so were irrelevant or outside scope | Exhibits and testimony provided background and explained why Bohms believed they were excused from paying rent | Court held exhibits admissible to explain the parties’ understanding and to support the equitable defense |
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to deny CR 50(a)/(b) motions (no competent/substantial evidence) | No competent evidence that Fred had an obligation to pay mortgages or that Bohms were excused; final REPSA required Bohms to obtain loan so they were in breach | Broker and party testimony plus REPSA/addenda supported that Fred was to satisfy mortgages, that Bohms need not obtain a loan, and that Fred breached, providing legal justification for nonpayment | Court found competent and substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict; CR 50 motions properly denied |
| Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees and on appeal fees | If jurisdictional error occurred, Bohms did not prevail and fees should be reversed | Bohms prevailed; REPSA provides prevailing-party fee clause entitling fees at trial and on appeal | Court affirmed trial-court fee award and awarded appellate fees to Bohms |
Key Cases Cited
- Angelo Prop. Co. v. Hafiz, 167 Wn. App. 789 (Washington Ct. App.) (unlawful detainer jurisdiction is limited; proceeding focuses on possession and related issues)
- Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1986) (defenses in unlawful detainer must relate to possession or excuse breach)
- Josephinium Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617 (Wash. Ct. App.) (legal justification for nonpayment is a cognizable defense in unlawful detainer)
- Puget Sound Inv. Group, Inc. v. Bridges, 92 Wn. App. 523 (Wash. Ct. App.) (unlawful detainer may not be used to litigate title)
- Snuffin v. Mayo, 6 Wn. App. 525 (Wash. Ct. App.) (equitable defenses overlapping title issues may be considered if necessary to determine right to possession)
- Paetsch v. Spokane Dermatology Clinic, PS, 182 Wn.2d 842 (Wash. 2015) (standard for judgment as a matter of law: whether competent, substantial evidence supports the verdict)
- Savings Bank of Puget Sound v. Mink, 49 Wn. App. 204 (Wash. Ct. App.) (counterclaims/defenses that do not directly relate to possession may be dismissed in unlawful detainer)
- Eagle Point Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Coy, 102 Wn. App. 697 (Wash. Ct. App.) (prevailing-party fee awards under contract/lease provisions are available on appeal)
- Heaverlo v. Keico Indus., Inc., 80 Wn. App. 724 (Wash. Ct. App.) (when unlawful detainer is based on nonpayment, courts inquire whether a legal justification for nonpayment exists)