Bulletin: WA000001

Dear Associates:

The Washington Court of Appeals (Div. 3) has ruled that it will not set aside a contract forfeiture for (1) equitable reasons. (2) an error in mailing the notice of intent to a particular address, or (3) untimeliness in mailing the declaration. Galladora v. Richter, 52 Wash. App. 778, 764 P.2d 647 (1988).

The purchaser's interest in a real estate contract was forfeited pursuant to the 1986 contract forfeiture act. The purchaser challenged the forfeiture within the 60-day period after receipt of the declaration on both equitable grounds and noncompliance with the statute.

The purchaser claimed a substantial equity in the property and asked the court to order an additional grace period. The court refused by ruling that the 90-day reinstatement period provided for by statute was all that the purchaser was entitled to.

The purchaser also argued that the notice of intent was not sent to his "address last known to the seller". The court concluded that the purchaser did receive the notice and, therefore, the question of whether it was sent to his last known address was not material.

The declaration was arguably not mailed within three days of recordation as required by statute. The court concluded that the purchaser was not prejudiced by this delay and that this technical error was also not material.