Peoples Nat. Bank of Washington v. Birney's Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 11405-4-II,11405-4-II |
| Citation | 54 Wn.App. 668,775 P.2d 466 |
| Parties | PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON, a national banking association, Respondent, v. BIRNEY'S ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington corporation; Frieda L. Higgerson and John Doe Higgerson, husband and wife, and/or Those Persons in Possession of Property Located at 706 and 716 East Front Street, Port Angeles, Washington and the Property at First and Eunice known as Birney's Restaurant, Port Angeles, Washington, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Catherine Wright Smith, Edwards and Barbieri, Seattle, for appellants.
Philip G. Hubbard, Philip A. Talmadge, B. Jeffrey Carl, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Seattle, for respondent.
Birney's Enterprises, Inc., appeals a judgment and an order for writ of restitution in favor of People's National Bank in this unlawful detainer action. Birney's claims that it has the right to possession under an unrecorded 20-year lease. The dispositive issue is whether the Bank had a duty, when it acquired its interest in the property, to make an inquiry that would have disclosed the lease. The trial court held that the Bank had no such duty. We reverse.
We pause here to issue a warning. Although formal written findings of fact were prepared and presented by the Bank's attorney, 1 conspicuously absent are any formal findings on the critical events. Rather, the formal findings merely state that "[t]he court's oral findings of fact of September 25, 1987, are hereby incorporated by reference herein." Because of this, we have been required to do what the attorney should have done: sort out findings from the trial court's oral remarks.
We will not tolerate the practice of incorporating a court's remarks into the findings. CR 52 requires written findings. This means formal findings on all disputed facts. CR 52(a)(1); CR 52(a)(4). See State v. Kingman, 77 Wash.2d 551, 463 P.2d 638 (1970). Absence of findings undermines the conclusions of law. Sandler v. United States Development Co., 44 Wash.App. 98, 721 P.2d 532 (1986); State v. Poirier, 34 Wash.App. 839, 664 P.2d 7 (1983). Also, absence of a finding will be taken as a negative finding on the issue. Smith v. King, 106 Wash.2d 443, 451, 722 P.2d 796 (1986); Golberg v. Sanglier, 96 Wash.2d 874, 880, 639 P.2d 1347 (1982); Pilling v. Eastern & Pac. Enters. Trust, 41 Wash.App. 158, 165, 702 P.2d 1232 review denied, 104 Wash.2d 1014 (1985). We consider it the prevailing party's duty to procure formal written findings supporting its position. Prevailing parties must fulfill that duty or abide the consequences of their failure to do so.
The record and the court's oral remarks disclose that the Bank has been doing business with Mrs. Higgerson, Birney's sole shareholder, and with Birney's itself for many years. In fact, Mrs. Higgerson's restaurant business was incorporated largely at the Bank's suggestion, but she continued to own the commercial property in which the business was conducted. Although the Bank suggested that the corporation "rent" the property, Birney's tenancy was pursuant to unrecorded written leases.
Over the years, the Bank made several loans to Birney's and Mrs. Higgerson personally guaranteed them. When Birney's experienced financial trouble in 1982, the Bank made a personal loan to Mrs. Higgerson and took a deed of trust on the property. The Bank performed land title and UCC searches, which disclosed nothing, but it did not ask any questions of Mrs. Higgerson or anyone else concerning the nature of Birney's tenancy. Although Mrs. Higgerson did not volunteer anything about the tenancy, the trial court found that she would have produced the lease for examination if asked. The unrecorded lease in effect at the time the Bank took the deed of trust was for a 20-year term at $1,200 per month.
The trial court rejected the Bank's contention that the lease was a fraudulent conveyance, and its oral remarks indicate its belief that the lease was reasonable and valid on its face. Also, there has been no contention that Mrs. Higgerson used the corporation as an alter ego or that the corporation is, indeed, anything but what it purports to be: a legal entity separate from that of its shareholders.
The following remarks of the trial court, which we denominate as findings, appear to be pivotal to the court's decision:
. . . . .
"In such a closely held situation Mr. Gwynn is unconcerned about the rental arrangements so long as the individual business operator personally guarantees the loan made to the corporation."
These "findings," together with the facts that the Bank's borrower was the sole shareholder of the corporate lessee and the Bank had a long history of loaning to the corporation on personal guarantees from Mrs. Higgerson, appear to form the basis for the trial court's apparent "conclusion of law" set forth in its oral remarks as follows:
The information Mr. Gwynn had available to him was that which ordinarily shows a closely held business arrangement where the closely held corporation rents with no written lease, the business premises from the individual who also controls the corporation. The bank had no reason to be concerned by that arrangement prior to the loan to Mrs. Higgerson because Mrs. Higgerson personally guaranteed the loans to the corporation. When the so-called transfer of the loan was arranged from the corporation to Mrs. Higgerson with the bank taking security in the business premises, the bank exercising ordinary prudence, having the information that it did and seeking to assure that there were no prior claims to the security, made a title check and found no other prior claims. The Plaintiff had no information that would put it on notice that the situation was different from the "ordinary one" where there is no long term undesirable lease attached to the porperty [sic]. The information disclosing the rental expenses to the corporation and rental income to Mrs. Higgerson is consistent with the ordinary situation, as is also the information from the corporation revealing leasehold improvements. 2 The loan to the corporation for remodling [sic] in 1979 would not reasonably lead the plaintiff to inquire in 1982 whether the apparently ordinary situation was different.
The unrecorded lease was binding between the lessor and lessee. Nichols v. DeBritz, 178 Wash. 375, 35 P.2d 29 (1934). Being unrecorded, however, pursuant to RCW 65.08.070 it was not binding on a bona fide purchaser. 3 The fundamental issue, therefore, is whether the Bank was a bona fide purchaser, viz: a purchaser without notice of the lease. Glaser v. Holdorf, 56 Wash.2d 204, 352 P.2d 212 (1960). We hold that it was not.
The long established Washington rule was firmly stated in Nichols v. DeBritz, supra, as follows:
The actual possession of the property by the appellant at the time the respondent's mortgage was filed for record was notice to him of whatever rights a prudent and reasonable inquiry would have revealed. The purchaser in such cases takes title subject to every right of the occupant that a reasonable inquiry would have disclosed. This rule applies as well to the nature of the tenure as to the quantity of land claimed by the party in possession.
178 Wash. at 380, 35 P.2d 29. Also see Karlsten v. Hamel, 123 Wash. 333, 212 P. 153 (1923); Bendon v. Parfit, 74 Wash. 645, 134 P. 185 (1913).
Birney's had the burden of proving that the Bank had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lian v. Stalick
... ... Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel One ... June 19, 2001 ... Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., 109 Wash.2d 406, 415-16, 745 P.2d 1284 (1987), ... Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters., 54 Wash.App ... ...
-
City of Bainbridge Island v. Brennan, No. 31816-4-II (WA 7/20/2005)
... ... CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent and ... FENTON, TRUSTEE; FIRST MUTUAL SAVINGS BANK; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION; FLEET REAL ... Charles Walter, Keating Bucklin McCormack Inc PS, 800 5th Ave Ste 4141, Seattle, WA 98104-3189 ... Peoples Nat'l Bank of Wash. v. Birney's Enters., Inc., 54 ... ...
-
Backlund v. University of Washington
... ... See Thomas v. Wilfac, Inc., 65 Wash.App. 255, 261, 828 P.2d 597 (informed ... Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters., Inc., 54 ... ...
-
State v. Head
... ... 964 P.2d 1187 ... STATE of Washington, Respondent, ... Stephen L. HEAD, Petitioner ... Head was an owner and officer of RBH2S, Inc., a company which managed logging of timberland ... , 129 Wash.2d 1016, 917 P.2d 576 (1996); Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters. Inc., 54 ... ...
-
§ 12.7 Standard of Review Applied to Specific Rulings: Civil Cases
...the findings or to supplement inadequate findings. In re La Belle, 107 Wn.2d at 219. In People's Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters. Inc., 54 Wn. App. 668, 670, 775 P.2d 466 (1989), however, the court disapproved of the practice of incorporating the trial court's oral decision by reference in th......
-
§ 3.3 Evaluate an Appeal in Light of the Appellate Process
...judge's oral opinion. Backlund v. Univ. of Wash., 137 Wn.2d 651, 975 P.2d 950 (1999); Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters., Inc., 54 Wn. App. 668, 775 P.2d 466 (1989). The Peoples National Bank court warned, "We consider it the prevailing party's duty to procure formal written findings su......
-
Table of Cases
...Nat'l Bank of Wash. v. Peterson, 82 Wn.2d 822, 514 P.2d 159 (1973): 11.4(3), 11.4(4), 18.5 Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters., Inc., 54 Wn. App. 668, 775 P.2d 466 (1989): 3.3(4)(b)(ii), 11.7(6), 12.7(12) People's Org. for Wash. Energy Res. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 101 Wn.2d 425, 679 ......
-
§ 11.7 Particular Applications of the General Rule and Its Exceptions
...1020 (2003). "[A]bsence of a finding will be taken as a negative finding on the issue." Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Birney's Enters., Inc., 54 Wn. App. 668, 670, 775 P.2d 466 (1989). This rule does not apply, however, if there is undisputed evidence that, in the appellate court's view, compels a ......