equitable subrogation doctrine in Washington

2015Bank ofAm., N.A. v. Prestance Corp., 160 Wn.2d 560, 564 , 160 P. 3d 17 ( 2007). 5 No. 46200 -1 - II II.

2015Columbia Cmty. Bank, 177 Wn.2d at 580 - 81; Prestance, 160 Wn.2d at 580 - 82.

2015App. 634, 644-45 , 279 P.3d 869 (2012) (holding that under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, a lender who repaid the borrower's previous loan is entitled to assume the position of the first priority lienholder), aff'd, 177 Wn.2d 566, 570 , 304 P.3d 472 (2013). 8 No. 72149-6-1/9 conclusion that the bank did not present any evidence to show what part of the Wiess settlement was attributable to the claim it seeks to offset and did not meet its burden of proving it was entitled to an offset.

2015App. 634, 644-45 , 279 P.3d 869 (2012) (holding that under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, a lender who repaid the borrower's previous loan is entitled to assume the position of the first priority lienholder), aff'd, 177 Wn.2d 566, 570 , 304 P.3d 472 (2013). 8 No. 72149-6-1/9 conclusion that the bank did not present any evidence to show what part of the Wiess settlement was attributable to the claim it seeks to offset and did not meet its burden of proving it was entitled to an offset.

2005Tilly v. John Doe, 49 Wn.

2005Tilly v. Doe, 49 Wash.App. 727, 734 , 746 P.2d 323 (1987).

2001Although the doctrine of equitable subrogation may be applied, this case is controlled by Coy v. Raabe, 69 Wash.2d 346 , 418 P.2d 728 (1966), which allows equitable subrogation to a bona fide purchaser [or refinance lender] to the extent they were entitled to rely on others to *672 guarantee title.

2001Although the doctrine of equitable subrogation may be applied, this case is controlled by Coy, 69 Wn.2d 346 , which allows equitable subrogation to a bona fide purchaser (or refinance lender) to the extent they were entitled to rely on others to guarantee title.

2001Kim v. Lee, 102 Wash.App. 586, 592 , 9 P.3d 245 (2000).

2001Kim v. Lee, 102 Wn.

2025Columbia Ministry of Health v. Homewood, 93 Wn.

2015Bank ofAm., N.A. v. Prestance Corp., 160 Wn.2d 560, 564 , 160 P. 3d 17 ( 2007). 5 No. 46200 -1 - II II.

2015Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 412 .

2007Although Kim is not, as the Court of Appeals in this case stated, "controlling precedent," the holding certainly marked our disapproval of the notion that subrogation should be permitted "`even if the payor had actual knowledge of the intervening interest.'" Id. at 90, 31 P.3d 665 (quoting RESTATEMENT (THIRD) § 7.6 cmt. e, at 520). ¶ 43 Thus, I would hold that actual knowledge of a prior lien bars application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

2001Kim v. Lee, 102 Wash.App. 586, 592 , 9 P.3d 245 (2000).

2000App.1982). [25] Nelson & Whitman, § 10.6, at 716; Osborne, § 282 at 570; 3 Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6 (1997). [26] Nelson & Whitman, § 10.6, at 716; Dodge City of Spartanburg, Inc., 454 S.E.2d at 920-21 . [27] Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6. [28] Metmor, 976 S.W.2d at 462 ; Ciaravino, 752 S.W.2d at 929 . [29] Because there is nothing in the record to indicate that Yakima Title had actual notice of Kim's lien when it issued its commitment for title insurance to PHH, we need not decide whether actual notice defeats an equitable subrogation claim. [30] The

2000Note, Security Transactions, 35 Wash. L.Rev. 232, 233 (1960); Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law § 9.1, at 676-77. [32] Income Investors, Inc. v. Shelton, 3 Wash.2d 599, 602 , 101 P.2d 973 (1940). [33] McKelvie v. Hackney, 58 Wash.2d 23, 32 , 360 P.2d 746 (1961).

2000Note, Security Transactions, 35 Wash. L.Rev. 232, 233 (1960); Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law § 9.1, at 676-77. [32] Income Investors, Inc. v. Shelton, 3 Wash.2d 599, 602 , 101 P.2d 973 (1940). [33] McKelvie v. Hackney, 58 Wash.2d 23, 32 , 360 P.2d 746 (1961).

2000Note, Security Transactions, 35 Wash. L.Rev. 232, 233 (1960); Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law § 9.1, at 676-77. [32] Income Investors, Inc. v. Shelton, 3 Wash.2d 599, 602 , 101 P.2d 973 (1940). [33] McKelvie v. Hackney, 58 Wash.2d 23, 32 , 360 P.2d 746 (1961).

2000Note, Security Transactions, 35 Wash. L.Rev. 232, 233 (1960); Nelson & Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law § 9.1, at 676-77. [32] Income Investors, Inc. v. Shelton, 3 Wash.2d 599, 602 , 101 P.2d 973 (1940). [33] McKelvie v. Hackney, 58 Wash.2d 23, 32 , 360 P.2d 746 (1961).

2000App.1982). [25] Nelson & Whitman, § 10.6, at 716; Osborne, § 282 at 570; 3 Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6 (1997). [26] Nelson & Whitman, § 10.6, at 716; Dodge City of Spartanburg, Inc., 454 S.E.2d at 920-21 . [27] Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6. [28] Metmor, 976 S.W.2d at 462 ; Ciaravino, 752 S.W.2d at 929 . [29] Because there is nothing in the record to indicate that Yakima Title had actual notice of Kim's lien when it issued its commitment for title insurance to PHH, we need not decide whether actual notice defeats an equitable subrogation claim. [30] The

2000App.1982). [25] Nelson & Whitman, § 10.6, at 716; Osborne, § 282 at 570; 3 Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6 (1997). [26] Nelson & Whitman, § 10.6, at 716; Dodge City of Spartanburg, Inc., 454 S.E.2d at 920-21 . [27] Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 7.6. [28] Metmor, 976 S.W.2d at 462 ; Ciaravino, 752 S.W.2d at 929 . [29] Because there is nothing in the record to indicate that Yakima Title had actual notice of Kim's lien when it issued its commitment for title insurance to PHH, we need not decide whether actual notice defeats an equitable subrogation claim. [30] The