Rhodes v. D & D Enterprises, Inc., 3266--I
| Decision Date | 07 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3266--I,3266--I |
| Citation | 16 Wn.App. 175,554 P.2d 390 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lawrence RHODES and Betty Rhodes, his wife, Appellants, v. D & D ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington Corporation, et al., Respondents. |
Jacob Cohen, Oak Harbor, for appellants.
M. J. Carlson, Everett, for respondents.
On June 12, 1969, Lawrence and Betty Rhodes, husband and wife, signed an earnest money receipt and agreement wherein they agreed to sell approximately 60 acres of land on Camano Island in Island County, Washington, to Phil B. Duncan and his wife, Lois V. Duncan. The agreement, presented to the Rhodeses by Ann B. Sollid, a licensed real estate broker, and a salesman in her employ, Bill K. Shuping, provided for a selling price of $174,000 with $150,000 net to the Rhodeses. Following execution of the agreement, the Duncans formed D & D Enterprises, Inc., and assigned their interest in the agreement to it. Thereafter, Phil Duncan, accompanied by Bill Shuping, asked an attorney to prepare a real estate contract clause which would entitle the purchaser to a deed release after the down payment and at each subsequent point when the principal had been reduced by $17,400. Based upon these instructions, the attorney drafted the following provision:
From time to time as purchaser shall have paid increments of ten (10) percent or more of the total principal purchase price, seller agrees to convey to purchaser by statutory warranty deed parcels equivalent to ten (10) percent of the total area of the property being purchased, pursuant to legal descriptions thereof to be provided by purchaser.
The real estate contract was executed on October 15, 1969, and D & D Enterprises began making the required semi-annual payments.
On October 4th or 5th, 1971, Phil Duncan delivered two deed releases to the Stanwood Branch of the Seattle-First National Bank (which was acting as collection agent for the Rhodeses) for the Rhodeses to sign. An officer of the bank (Ann Sollid's husband) advised Rhodes not to sign the deed releases and suggested that he see an attorney. Thereafter, Rhodes refused to execute the deed releases and D & D did not make the semi-annual payment due on October 10, 1971.
The Rhodeses thereafter brought this action in the Snohomish County Superior Court seeking (1) a declaratory judgment construing the previously quoted contract provision and (2) monetary damages against the various defendants. The Duncans and D & D responded by seeking (1) dismissal of the Rhodeses' complaint and (2) rescission of the contract or, alternatively, damages for its breach. The Sollids responded by seeking dismissal of the Rhodeses' complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
On March 30, 1973, in a document denominated 'Decree,' the trial court, sitting without a jury, (1) construed the disputed clause of the contract, (2) ordered the Rhodeses to convey approximately ten percent of the property to D & D, (3) terminated the contract, and (4) denied the Rhodeses' claims for damages against the various defendants. The specific parcel to be conveyed was left to negotiations between the parties with the provisions that a referee was to be appointed in the event that agreement could not be reached. That appointment became necessary and, following further proceedings, in a document denominated 'Final Judgment' entered on August 19, 1974, the court directed the Rhodeses to convey a specific portion of the property to D & D. The Rhodeses appeal.
The threshold issue is whether this appeal, or any part of it, must be dismissed for failure to comply with CAROA 33 which precludes appellate jurisdiction unless notice of appeal is filed within 30 days after entry of an appealable order, judgment or decree. CAROA 33(1); Kelly v. Schorzman, 3 Wash.App. 908, 911, 478 P.2d 769 (1970). Here, the notice of appeal filed on September 12, 1974, was within 30 days of the 'Final Judgment' entered on August 19, 1974; the question then becomes whether we thereby obtained jurisdiction to review the matters adjudicated in the 'Decree' entered on March 30, 1973. The scope of review on appeal is determined by the type of judicial determination appealed from. CAROA 14; Nestegard v. Investment Exchange Corp., 5 Wash.App. 618, 489 P.2d 1142 (1971). CAROA 14 specifies three types of judicial determinations: order, final judgment and final order. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Detention of Turay
...(Emphasis added.) However, a "final judgment" is one that settles all the issues in a case. See Rhodes v. D & D Enters., Inc., 16 Wash.App. 175, 178, 554 P.2d 390 (1976); see also CR 54(a)(1) (providing that a "judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in the action")......
-
Marriage of Maxfield, In re
...611, 614, 649 P.2d 123 (1982). See also In re Marriage of Osborn, 24 Wash.App. 862, 604 P.2d 954 (1979); Rhodes v. D & D Enters., Inc., 16 Wash.App. 175, 554 P.2d 390 (1976). Here, Mr. Maxfield did not appeal the September 16, 1983 contempt order and judgment. On January 20, 1984 he moved f......
-
Mockovak v. King Cnty.
...the case, "substance controls over form and [we] look[] to the content of a document rather than its title."6 Our decision in Rhodes v. D & D Enterprises, Inc. is illustrative.7 In that case, certain vendors brought a declaratory action, asking the court to construe a provision in a contrac......
-
Denney v. City of Richland
...case are contemplated or become necessary." 2A TEGLAND , supra , RAP 2.2, at 100 (8th ed. 2014); see also Rhodes v. D&D Enters., Inc. , 16 Wash. App. 175, 176-78, 554 P.2d 390 (1976) (order construing real estate contract and directing conveyance of part of a land parcel was held to be fina......
-
§ 4.3 Superior Court Decisions that May Be Appealed
...prevail over form in determining whether a decision is final for purposes of appeal. For example, in Rhodes v. D&D Enterprises, Inc., 16 Wn. App. 175, 178, 554 P.2d 390 (1976), the appellate court held that a decree construing a real estate contract and directing conveyance of a part of a p......
-
Table of Cases
...Rhinevault, 91 Wn. App. 688, 959 P.2d 687 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . 28.10[1], [2]; 67.04[3][b][iv] Rhodes v. D & D Enterprises, Inc., 16 Wn. App. 175, 554 P.2d 390 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.03[3] Rhodes; State v., 92 Wn.2d 755, 600 P.2d 1264 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
-
Table of Cases
...11.7(2)(f) Rhod-a-Zalea & 35th, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 136 Wn.2d 1, 959 P.2d 1024 (1998): 21.3(3) Rhodes v. D&D Enters., Inc., 16 Wn. App. 175, 554 P.2d 390 (1976): 4.3(1) Rice, In re, 24 Wn.2d 118, 163 P.2d 583 (1945): 11.7(9)(e) Rice, In re, 118 Wn.2d 876, 828 P.2d 1086, cert. denied, ......
-
§69.03 Procedures
...to order the conveyance of property located outside the county when it has jurisdiction over the parties. Rhodes v. D & D Enters., Inc., 16 Wn. App. 175, 554 P.2d 390 (1976). However, in an action involving an automobile, the Supreme Court has ruled that actions involving the rights to the ......