Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equitable Lien Unjust Enrichment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears whether unjust-enrichment suit can support equitable lien and lis pendens
Summary
At oral argument in Other Court, appellant counsel argued that an unjust-enrichment claim seeking an equitable lien on the Renata Lane property supports a lis pendens; respondent counsel said Washington law does not clearly allow equitable liens in pure unjust-enrichment cases and stressed the practical harm of a lis pendens to a disabled homeowner.
An appellate panel in Other Court on Monday heard competing legal positions over whether an unjust-enrichment claim accompanied by a request for an equitable lien can be treated as an action affecting title to real property and therefore support a lis pendens.
Dan Young, attorney for appellant Elizabeth Harmon, told the court that Harmon bought and improved a house on Renata Lane and "put over $250,000 of her own money" into the property, money she said came from inheritances. Young said Harmon sued for unjust enrichment and asked the court to impose an equitable lien so that, if she prevails, she would be paid. "If she doesn't have a lis pendens, then the property could be transferred, sold," Young said, arguing that transfers during litigation could make recovery impractical and that Morton v. LeBlanc supports filing a lis pendens with an equitable action.
Respondent counsel Owen Gabrielson of Farr Law Group countered that lis pendens functions like a lien in practice and would impose substantial hardship on his client, who Gabrielson said "is on Social Security" and "a disabled veteran" who cannot access equity or sell the home while the lis pendens stands. Gabrielson argued that Washington courts have not recognized an equitable lien as a remedy for an ordinary unjust-enrichment claim outside community-property contexts and that established post-judgment remedies (attachment, fraudulent-transfer actions and other enforcement tools) are the appropriate means to secure relief.
The panel questioned both sides about scope and precedent. One judge asked whether treating every unjust-enrichment claim that seeks an equitable lien as an action affecting title would be overbroad; Young acknowledged not every case would qualify but said the requested equitable lien here would "burden the title of the defendant." Counsel and the bench debated the significance of prior appellate language in a related quiet-title ruling and whether that earlier opinion forecloses an equitable-lien argument in the current posture.
The parties also disputed whether out-of-state authority and the Restatement of Restitution should guide Washington courts. Gabrielson told the court he had not prepared to adopt an Arizona decision (Coventry Homes) and emphasized that many Washington cases that recognize equitable interests arise in community-property settings.
The panel asked about factual complications in the record, including a February bankruptcy discharge and a joint-venture quitclaim referenced by the bench; Young said those facts do not necessarily defeat an unjust-enrichment theory and argued the lis pendens issue was not resolved in the prior proceedings. Counsel for both sides cited cases the court should weigh, including Morton v. LeBlanc, Bramwell v. Wells and Seattle v. Schwab, and debated how those decisions bear on whether an equitable lien can be created at trial and therefore survive or affect a quiet-title disposition.
The court recessed until 1:30 p.m. and said it would consider additional cases without argument later in the day. The panel did not announce a decision at the conclusion of oral argument.
