Thomas Dutcher & Diane Dutcher v. Wynden Holman & Jamie Holman
74976-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Thomas Dutcher held an unrecorded warranty deed to Bellingham property conveyed to him in 2012; he recorded it in June 2013 and contracted to sell the property to the Lummi Nation with a July 31, 2013 closing.
- Wynden Holman (a real estate broker) recorded two liens against the property claiming unpaid "real estate services," the second recorded 12 days before closing; Holman admitted he knew Dutcher owned the property and produced no documentary support for the liens.
- To avoid losing the Lummi sale, Dutcher paid Holman $11,550 to release the lien and closed the sale on July 30, 2013; Dutcher later sued Holman for unjust enrichment, slander of title, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
- At summary judgment the trial court entered judgment for Dutcher on all claims and awarded $75,331.39; Holman appealed summary judgment rulings and some fee determinations.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Dutcher on unjust enrichment and slander of title (including attorney fees for that claim) but reversed as to the CPA claim, finding a disputed issue of fact on the CPA public-interest element and remanding that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dutcher) | Defendant's Argument (Holman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment — was Holman unjustly enriched by $11,550? | Holman received a benefit at Dutcher's expense and retention is unjust because the liens were baseless and payment was coerced by imminent closing. | Payment was voluntary or payment corresponded to real services; issues of fact exist about inequity. | Affirmed for Dutcher — no factual dispute that retention was unjust and payment was not voluntary. |
| CPA — did Holman's lien activity violate the CPA (including public-interest impact)? | Holman acted in trade/commerce as a broker and his baseless liens had capacity to injure others (public interest). | The dispute was a private family transaction and lacks trade-or-commerce and public-interest impact; Holman didn’t act as contractor so no per se CPA violation. | Reversed in part — trade/commerce established, but public-interest impact is factual and cannot be decided on summary judgment; remanded. |
| Slander of title — did Holman maliciously publish false liens causing pecuniary loss and defeating title? | The liens were false, published maliciously (Holman admitted lack of legal basis and knowledge of ownership), interfered with sale, and caused $11,550 payment. | Holman contends no malice or pecuniary loss and that liens did not "defeat" title as they did not void it. | Affirmed for Dutcher — elements satisfied as matter of law: malice, pecuniary loss, and publication that went to defeat title. |
| Attorney fees for slander of title and on appeal — are fees recoverable? | Fees are recoverable as special damages for slander of title; fees on appeal for that claim also recoverable. | Holman argued fees should be limited to costs of removing the cloud and not recoverable if plaintiff paid to settle. | Affirmed in part — trial court's award of fees for slander of title upheld and additional appellate fees for that claim awarded; CPA-related fee recovery reserved pending remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (Wash. 1986) (framework for CPA public‐interest element and factors indicating public impact)
- Rorvig v. Douglas, 123 Wn.2d 854 (Wash. 1994) (slander of title elements and attorney fees as special damages)
- Young v. Young, 164 Wn.2d 477 (Wash. 2008) (discussing voluntary payment doctrine)
- Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595 (Wash. 2009) (defining trade or commerce for professional services under the CPA)
- Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581 (Wash. 1983) (unauthorized professional practice and public-interest considerations)