Timberland Bank v. Shawn Mesaros & Jane Doe Mesaros State Of Wa Dshs, 49156-7

Mesaros borrowed $375,000 from Timberland Bank and granted a deed of trust on commercial property; he defaulted on the note.
Timberland sued for judicial foreclosure; the superior court entered a judgment and decree of foreclosure and awarded a deficiency judgment.
The court issued an Order of Sale on February 5, 2016 and directed the sheriff to sell the property; a sale date was set and notices were published.
The court extended the Order of Sale 30 days on April 29; the sheriff issued postponement notices and ultimately sold the property to Timberland on May 27, 2016.
The sheriff filed a return on sale on June 2; the superior court confirmed the sale on June 27 over Mesaros’s objection and denied his motion for an upset price.
Mesaros appealed, arguing the sale was void because it occurred after the statutory period for return of execution had expired; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mesaros)	Defendant's Argument (Timberland)	Held
Whether the sheriff's sale was void because it occurred after the Order of Sale expired under statutory timing.	Sale was void: sheriff failed to sell and return execution within the statutory period following the Order of Sale.	Issue was not preserved for appeal; alternatively, sale was valid.	Sale was void: timing requirements were statutory and the sale occurred without authority, so confirmation is set aside.
Whether the jurisdictional challenge may be raised for first time on appeal.	N/A (relies on jurisdictional nature of the defect).	Challenge forfeited for not being raised below.	Void orders affecting authority are reviewable at any time; Mesaros may raise the challenge on appeal.
Whether the superior court abused discretion by denying hearing to set upset price.	Requested hearing to set upset/upset price due to inadequate sale price.	Insufficient evidence to warrant upset price hearing.	Court did not address merits because sale and confirmation were void; but it found insufficient evidence below.
Whether a deficiency judgment could be imposed after a potentially defective sale.	N/A (contested generally).	N/A.	Court did not reach remaining issues after holding sale void.

Hazel v. Van Beek, 135 Wn.2d 45 (challenge to void judgment may be raised at any time)
Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 560 (statutory time limits are jurisdictional; actions beyond authority are invalid)
Le Tastevin, Inc. v. Seattle First Nat’l Bank, 95 Wn. App. 224 (judgment creditor execution procedures under Chapter 6.17)
Kave v. McIntosh Ridge Primary Rd. Ass’n, 198 Wn. App. 812 (preservation of issues for appeal guidance)