IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
SELENE RMOF II REO No. 72504-1-
ACQUISITIONS II, LLC,
Respondent,
VANESSA D. WARD, AND
ALL OCCUPANTS OF THE PREMISES V?
LOCATED AT 7913 SOUTH 115TH UNPUBLISHED OPINION C3
PLACE, m/k/a 7911 SOUTH 115TH
PLACE, SEATTLE, WA 98178, FILED: February 29, 2016
Appellant.
Verellen, A.C.J. — A grant of a writ of restitution in an unlawful detainer action
may be premature if there are unresolved claims to title. A party may not proceed under
RCW 59.12.030(6) of the unlawful detainer statute unless it can show that a person
entered upon its land "without the permission of the owner and without having color of title
thereto." Vanessa Ward appeals the judgment entered against her on an unlawful detainer
action. She holds a 2004 notarized quitclaim deed. This deed provides Ward color of title.
Therefore, we conclude the summary procedures of unlawful detainer are not applicable.
Because Selene RMOF II REO Acquisition II, LLC did not purchase the property at a
trustee's foreclosure sale, we reject Selene's argument that it is entitled to pursue an
unlawful detainer action under the statutory provisions allowing the purchaser at a trustee's
foreclosure sale to bring an unlawful detainer action. We reverse.
No. 72504-1-1/2
FACTS
In 2012, Selene purchased property located at 7911 South 115th Place in Seattle
from LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Merrill Lynch First Franklin
Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3. LaSalle
Bank had previously purchased the property at a trustee's sale. The grantor of the
foreclosed deed of trust traces his interest in the property back to a 2005 deed from
Chester Dorsey.
Selene's theory of the case is that Dorsey obtained title to the property after the
previous owner, Vanessa Ward, quitclaimed him the deed in 2001. Dorsey then sold the
property to Fred and Grace Brooks in 2005. Two years later, Dorsey, as attorney in fact
for the Brooks, conveyed the property to James Dreier. Thereafter, Dreier took out a loan
secured by a deed of trust on the property. After Dreier defaulted on his loan obligations in
2008, the trustee's sale was scheduled.
Ward's theory of the case is that she only "discussed" deeding the property to
Dorsey so he could obtain a lower interest rate on her mortgage.1 Ward maintains she
never followed through with the conveyance, but claims Dorsey fraudulently executed and
recorded a 2001 quitclaim deed to that effect. Dorsey then executed a quitclaim deed
conveying the property back to her for one dollar in 2004; this quitclaim deed was
notarized, but not recorded. Ward acknowledges receiving notice of the trustee's sale.
She filed a lawsuit for unfair and deceptive conduct, civil conspiracy, and outrage before
the scheduled sale, but the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice for failure to timely
comply with discovery requests.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 29; Report of Proceedings (Sept. 15, 2014) at 25.
No. 72504-1-1/3
In 2014, Selene filed this unlawful detainer action. The complaint alleged Ward was
occupying the property and was "believed to be a tenant of the former owner of the
property."2 Ward filed a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that she was not a
tenant and had color of title to the property. She attached the 2004 notarized quitclaim
deed conveying all interest of Dorsey to her. After a show cause hearing, the trial court
granted the writ of restitution.
Ward appeals.
ANALYSIS
Ward contends the court erred in issuing a writ of restitution. She argues she
cannot be guilty of unlawful detainer because she is not a tenant and has color of title to
the property. We agree.
Our analysis is limited to questions of law, which we review de novo.3 "The unlawful
detainer statute, chapter 59.12 RCW, provides a summary proceeding for obtaining
possession of real property, and gives the proceeding priority over other civil cases."4 The
scope of an unlawful detainer action is narrow, "limited to the question of possession and
related issues such as restitution of the premises and rent."5 "Unlawful detainer actions
offer a plaintiff the advantage of speedy relief, but do not provide a forum for litigating
claims to title."6
2CPat1.
3 Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tvdinqs, 125 Wn.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d
1383(1994).
4 Puqet Sound Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Bridges, 92 Wn. App. 523, 526, 963 P.2d 944
(1998).
5 Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711 P.2d 295 (1985).
6 Puget Sound, 92 Wn. App. at 526.
No. 72504-1-1/4
Selene brought its unlawful detainer action under chapter 59.12 RCW, relying on
the provision authorizing the purchaser at a deed of trust foreclosure sale to bring an
unlawful detainer action to evict the previous owner of the home.7 But Selene was not the
purchaser at the deed of trust foreclosure sale; LaSalle Bank purchased the property at the
sale and later conveyed it to Selene. Selene cites no authority that it is entitled to pursue
an unlawful detainer action as the purchaser at the deed of trust foreclosure sale.
The only provision that appears to have any application here is
RCW 59.12.030(6), under which a "person who, without the permission of the owner and
without having color of title thereto, enters upon land of another and who fails or refuses to
remove therefrom after three days' notice" is guilty of unlawful detainer.
While RCW 59.12.030(6) does not define "color of title," it is discussed in the
unlawful detainer context in Puget Sound Investment Group, Inc. v. Bridges.8 There, the
Internal Revenue Service foreclosed on Bridges' home and sold it at a tax sale to the
Puget Sound Investment Group.9 Bridges refused to surrender possession because he
had a statutory warranty deed. Puget Sound initiated an unlawful detainer action under
RCW 59.12.030(6).10 This court held that Bridges' statutory warranty deed gave him color
of title and precluded any relief under the unlawful detainer statute.11
Here, Ward holds a 2004 notarized quitclaim deed from Dorsey. Consistent with
Puget Sound, this deed provides Ward color of title. Therefore, the summary procedures
7 See RCW 59.12.032 ("An unlawful detainer action, commenced as result of a
trustee's sale . . . must comply with the requirements of RCW 61.24.040 and 61.24.060).
8 92 Wn. App. 523, 525, 963 P.2d 944 (1998).
9 ]g\ at 525.
10 Id,
11 Id. at 527.
No. 72504-1-1/5
of unlawful detainer are not applicable here. Selene must establish superior title before it
may proceed under RCW 59.12.030(6).12
Selene's other arguments are not persuasive. Ward was entitled to defend against
the unlawful detainer action whether or not she served and noted her motion to dismiss.13
Ward's claims are not a post-sale contest that were waived for failure to enjoin the
trustee's sale.14 Whether Selene is a bona fide purchaser for value and the impact of the
trustee's deed, together with Ward's knowledge of the trustee's sale, are all beyond the
scope of this unlawful detainer action and this appeal.15
We reverse.
WE CONCUR:
|/\ M 0 y , ^
12 Alternatives available to Selene include an ejectment or quiet title action.
13 See RCW 59.18.380 ("At the time and place fixed for the hearing of plaintiff's
motion for a writ of restitution, the defendant, or any person in possession or claiming
possession of the property, may answer, orally or in writing, and assert any legal or
equitable defense or set-off arising out of the tenancy.").
14 See RCW 61.24.040(1 )(f)(IX).
15 See Munden, 105 Wn.2d at 45 ("In order to protect the summary nature of the
unlawful detainer proceedings, other claims, including counterclaims, are generally not
allowed," except "when the counterclaim, affirmative equitable defense, or setoff is 'based
on facts which excuse a tenant's breach.'" (quoting First Union Mgmt.. Inc. v. Slack, 36
Wn. App. 849, 854, 679 P.2d 936 (1984))).