Union Street Holdings, Llc v. South Sound Charities, Inc., 76015-7

Background

Management (borrower) granted a deed of trust to secure a $3.46M loan; Management leased the property and later entered an unrecorded successor lease with South Sound Charities (Charities).
Management defaulted; HomeStreet (successor to Fortune Bank) foreclosed nonjudicially; HomeStreet assigned the deed of trust to its subsidiary Union Street, which bid at the trustee sale and received the trustee's deed.
Charities did not vacate within 20 days of the sale; Union Street brought an unlawful detainer action and the court commissioner allowed Charities to remain until March 7, 2015 conditioned on two $22,000 payments (Charities paid both).
The trial court later ruled Union Street was entitled to possession; remaining claims were reserved; the parties later dismissed the action with prejudice; while appeal was pending Union Street conveyed the property to a third party.
On appeal Charities raised multiple claims (challenging purchaser status, trustee-sale procedures, acceptance of rent, need for writ, equitable estoppel). The court found most claims moot because Union Street no longer held title and effective relief (restoring possession) could not be provided.
The court addressed Charities’ monetary claim about the $44,000 payments, concluding (1) Charities invited the error by asking for equitable relief conditioned on payments and accepting the order, and (2) Charities failed to preserve a particular argument about the payments below.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Charities)	Defendant's Argument (Union Street)	Held
Was Union Street the purchaser at the trustee sale?	Union Street was not the true purchaser or titleholder.	Union Street was the assignee and bidder who obtained the trustee's deed.	Moot as to possession because Union Street later conveyed title to a third party and effective relief cannot be granted.
Should the court have held a trial to determine validity of the trustee sale?	Charities sought a trial to litigate the propriety of the sale.	Trial unnecessary for possession where purchaser held the property; now moot after conveyance.	Moot; the court declined relief because it cannot restore possession against the current nonparty owner.
Did the commissioner err by conditioning continued occupation on two $22,000 payments and by Union Street’s acceptance of rent?	Acceptance of the $44,000 should preclude unlawful detainer and entitle Charities to relief or recovery of payments.	Charities requested and accepted the court-ordered extension with the payment condition; payments were voluntary under court order.	Court rejects Charities’ claim: payment condition was invited error (Charities requested the relief and complied); alternative argument regarding proportionality of payments was not preserved below.
Is the appeal nonmoot because Charities retains a live monetary interest (rent/damages)?	The $44,000 payment leaves a monetary dispute that preserves the appeal.	Most claims are moot; monetary claims may survive but Charities invited the error and failed to preserve specific arguments.	Monetary claims addressed: appeal cannot restore possession, and Charities’ challenge to payments fails—invited error and waived issues—so affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tydinqs, 125 Wn.2d 337 (1994) (standard of review for questions of law; de novo review)
Housing Authority of the City of Pasco v. Pleasant, 126 Wn. App. 382 (2005) (appellate review where record is written; appellate court stands in same position)
Josephinium Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617 (2002) (mootness: court cannot grant effective relief when a nonparty holds title)
McGary v. Westlake Investors, 99 Wn.2d 280 (1983) (monetary claims survive mootness where tenant has a monetary stake)
State v. Beaver, 184 Wn.2d 321 (2015) (appellate courts avoid moot or abstract questions)
Lochridge v. Natsuhara, 114 Wn. 326 (1921) (unlawful detainer not automatically moot when possession changes)
Kessler v. Nielsen, 3 Wn. App. 120 (1970) (distinguishing cases where relief could be determined vis-à-vis parties in possession)
Angelo Property Co. LP v. Hafiz, 167 Wn. App. 789 (2012) (invited error doctrine bars complaining on appeal about trial error the party invited)
Mukilteo Retirement Apartments, L.L.C. v. Mukilteo Investors, L.P., 176 Wn. App. 244 (2013) (appellate court generally will not review issues not raised below)
Sprincin King St. Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 84 Wn. App. 56 (1996) (measure of damages in unlawful detainer is fair market value for use of premises)