Attorneys dispute whether post‑trial assignment of Grama note allows new claims

An appellate panel heard oral argument on whether claims tied to a promissory instrument assigned after a 2020 lawsuit may be litigated now or are barred by procedural doctrines.

Thomas DeShield, counsel for plaintiff Gage Whitehead, told the court that “this appeal revolves around really 1 central fact and that’s the assignment of the Grama note to Gage following the conclusion of the 2020 lawsuit.” He said that because Gage acquired the note after the earlier case, the claims that arise from that note could not have been compulsory counterclaims in 2020 and therefore should not be dismissed under CR 13 or as res judicata.

DeShield framed the dispute around three doctrines the court must consider: CR 13 (compulsory counterclaims), res judicata, and statutes of limitation. He also invoked the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act (UVTA) and urged that an accurate accounting is necessary to show whether an overpayment occurred and what remedies are available. “We need to get an accurate accounting,” DeShield said, and he argued that factual disputes about alleged payments and valuation preclude dismissal.

The panel pressed DeShield on the elements of unjust enrichment and whether those elements can be satisfied when a claim is enforced by an assignee rather than the original payor. DeShield cited Young v. Young for the three‑part test (defendant received a benefit; the benefit was at the claimant’s expense; circumstances make retention unjust) and said the precedent does not require the benefit to have been conferred directly by the plaintiff. He argued that an assignee who steps into an assignor’s legal position may bring claims the assignor could have pursued, when those claims did not exist or were not actionable at the time of the earlier suit.

Opposing counsel Bill Kinsell, appearing for the creditors referred to in argument as “the rents,” responded that the factual record in 2020 gave the plaintiff (or Graham) the ability to press causes of action like unjust enrichment, UVTA claims and accounting, and that those were therefore compulsory counterclaims under CR 13. “This was a compulsory counterclaim,” Kinsell said, arguing that assignment cannot erase earlier procedural failures and that an assignee inherits the assignor’s procedural position.

Judges repeatedly asked where the 2020 record contains a final adjudication of the factual issues the rents rely on and whether any final judgments or special‑verdict findings would support collateral estoppel on remand. One judge observed that collateral estoppel could apply if there were final determinations in the earlier case about how much was owed and which assets were applied to those payments, but several participants said the accounting questions were discussed at trial and in filings yet not finally adjudicated.

The panel and counsel also debated creditor priority and whether the rents’ secured claim would exhaust assets such that an assignee enforcing the Grama note could ever obtain a remainder. Counsel cited RCW 19.40.071 as the statutory framework that limits a claimant to recovery only to the extent of that claimant’s claim and that any remaining property stays with the transferee absent a voiding of the transfer.

Responding to summary‑judgment arguments, DeShield asserted the moving party bore the burden to show no genuine issue of material fact and that the record lacks evidence that Robert (Bob) Graham knew about or had sufficient notice of the relevant claims in 2019–2023. Counsel differed over whether the summary‑judgment record established a basis for dismissal or whether remand for further fact‑finding is required.

The justices took procedural questions and indicated they would take the remainder of the cases in chambers for further consideration. No final decision was announced during oral argument.

The central legal questions the court must resolve are (1) whether an assignee who acquires a note after an earlier suit may pursue claims tied to that note that were not available during the original litigation; (2) whether CR 13 or res judicata preclude those claims when underlying facts were litigated earlier; and (3) how statutes of limitation and creditor priority statutes (as argued under UVTA/RCW 19.40.071) apply to any recovery. The panel’s further action (written opinion or remand) will determine how the record‑based issues raised at argument are resolved.