Skinner v. Hunter

164 P. 244, 95 Wash. 607, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 861
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 12, 1917
DocketNo. 13854
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 P. 244 (Skinner v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skinner v. Hunter, 164 P. 244, 95 Wash. 607, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 861 (Wash. 1917).

Opinion

Chadwick, J.—

Respondent began an action to foreclose a mortgage upon certain property in Spokane. A lis pendens was filed at the time the action was commenced. The property was occupied by appellants Bedford as tenants from month to month. They were not made parties to the foreclosure proceedings. Before judgment was entered, the Bed-fords, whom I shall refer to as appellants, purchased the property of the mortgagors and, on the same day, filed a declaration of homestead. After decree and sale, appellants refused to give possession, and respondent applied for and was granted a writ of assistance. Counsel contends that a writ of assistance is not a proper remedy, but as the record is not sufficient to raise that issue, we will consider his main reliance, that is, that his clients are entitled to remain in possession of the mortgaged premises under their claim of homestead.

[608]*608The filing of a lis pendens bars a stranger to the title from asserting a homestead in the property. Rem. Code, § 243; Jones, Mortgages (7th ed.), § 1664. See, also, Payson v. Jacobs, 38 Wash. 203, 80 Pac. 429; Portland & Seattle R. Co. v. Ladd, 47 Wash. 88, 91 Pac. 573.

Under our statute, the right to claim a homestead in property can hardly be said to be a matter of traffic. It is a right reserved to a “judgment debtor” to “retain” possession of the mortgaged premises during the period of redemption. Rem. Code, § 602.

Since appellants’ grantors had neither possession nor right of homestead at the time the lis pendens was filed, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., Main, and Webster, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Corbett v. Superior Court
48 P.2d 617 (Washington Supreme Court, 1935)
Northwest Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Butcher
167 P. 46 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 P. 244, 95 Wash. 607, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-hunter-wash-1917.