Mufg Union Bank v. Randy Campadore
47755-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Guarantors Voight Creek Estates LLC guaranteed Voight Creek's indebtedness to Frontier Bank; FDIC receiver later took over Frontier Bank.
- Union Bank purchased the promissory note and assets from Frontier Bank's FDIC receiver in 2012.
- The deed of trust provided for a receiver and sale process, but did not authorize a general receiver to sell without consent.
- An Agreed Order in 2012 appointed a general receiver with authority to sell the Orting property, subject to court approval; Voight Creek and Guarantors consented to the appointment.
- In 2013 the receiver sold the Orting property for $360,000 after objections; the sale was approved and the receivership terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the receivership statute precludes a deficiency judgment after a receiver's sale | Union Bank argues Umpqua Bank controls; statute does not preclude deficiency. | Campadore argues the statute is silent and precludes deficiency judgments against guarantors. | Deficiency judgments are not precluded; court should grant Union Bank summary judgment. |
| Whether the deed of trust was breached by the general receiver's appointment | Union Bank contends appointment by Agreed Order was consensual and not a breach. | Campadore contends such appointment breached the deed of trust and voided deficiency claims. | Appointment was consensual; no breach bar to deficiency claim. |
| Whether the sale price bound Guarantors and whether unresolved factual issues remained | Union Bank asserts the sale price bound Guarantors; no genuine fact issue about value. | Guarantors argue value disputes create factual issues for deficiency amount. | Sale price binding; no genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Umpqua Bank v. Shasta Apartments, LLC, 194 Wn. App. 685 (2016) (receivership sale not precluding deficiency judgments; court-approved receivership is a judicial sale)
- Union Bank NA v. Blanchard, 194 Wn. App. 340 (2016) (unjust enrichment fees awarded to creditor enforcing guaranties)
- Munich v. Skagit Emergency Cmmc’ns Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871 (2012) (de novo review of summary judgment and standard of review)
- Ruvalcaba v. Kwang Ho Baek, 175 Wn.2d 1 (2012) (statutory interpretation is a question of law; de novo review)