### 20|iiSEP-2 AHII'-Oi
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TOWNE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,

v. BRIAN D. BECKMANN and JANE DOE BECKMANN, husband and wife, and their marital community; and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. DCR SERVICES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Appellant,

v. THE CONDO GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liabilitycompany, Respondent, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national 

### banking association, NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, Third-Party Defendants. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association,Fourth-Party Plaintiff, No. 70604-7-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: September2, 2014No. 70604-7-1/2

TOWNE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Fourth-Party Defendant. Becker, J. —This appeal arose from an attemptto gain a windfall by use 

### of an erroneous interpretation ofWashington's redemption statute, former RCW 6.23.010 (1987). Appellant DCR Services LLCwas not a proper redemptioner. We affirm the orderofdismissal granted on summaryjudgment. The real estate in question is unit 38 in a Bellevue condominium managed 

### byTowne Owner's Association. Brian Beckmann purchased unit 38 withlender financing. He signed a promissory note for $357,100 on February 15, 2007, secured by a deed oftrust on unit 38. Beckmann became delinquent in his dues for common area expense assessments owed to Towne. Towne, the condominium association, had a lien 

### forthese unpaid assessments underthe Condominium Act, RCW 64.34.364. In March 2011, Towne foreclosed on the lien and obtained a defaultjudgment 

### against Beckmann. As a result of the filing of the lawsuit, the lender's deed of trust was "reprioritized" underthe act, and at that instant, the lender "became a 

### subordinatejunior lienholderwhose lien interests were extinguished," thus bringing into play the provisions ofthe redemption statute. BAC Home Loans Servicing. LP v. Fulbriqht. Wn.2d , 328 P.3d 895, 900 (2014). The trial court entered an order ofsale commanding the sheriffto seize 

### and sell the property. The Condo GroupLLC, respondent herein, purchased unit
2No. 70604-7-1/3
38 at the sheriff's sale on August 5, 2011, for $6,200. Atthis point, both Beckmann and the lender had redemption rights. The court order allowed for a
one year redemption period. InApril 2012, appellant DCR Services LLC—an entity with no previous connection to unit 38—entered into a transaction with Beckmann. The transaction was designed to make DCR a statutory redemptionerwith the right to redeem unit 38 from The Condo Group. DCR loaned Beckmann $2,500. As security for the loan, Beckmann gave DCR a deed oftrust on unit 38 and signed
a promissory note. For an additional $2,500, Beckmann quitclaimed to DCR all of his rights inthe property, including redemption rights created by the sheriffs sale. The promissory note relieved Beckmann ofany personal liability inthe event he defaulted on the loan. Italso limited DCR's remedy to foreclosing on the property interest secured by the note. DCR delivered a letterto the sheriffasserting its intent to redeem unit 38. The redemption statute, before its amendment in 2013, provided that 

### property sold subjectto redemption could be redeemed by a creditorwith a lien that is "subsequent intime" to that on which the property was sold: 

### (1) Real property sold subjectto redemption, as provided in RCW 6.21.080, or any part thereofseparately sold, may be redeemed by the following persons, or their successors in interest: 

### (a) Thejudgmentdebtor, inthe whole or any part ofthe property sold. 

### (b) A creditor having a lien byjudgment, decree, deed of 

### trust, or mortgage, on any portion ofthe property, or any portion of any partthereof, separately sold, subsequentin timeto that on which the property was sold. The persons mentioned in this subsection are termed redemptioners.No. 70604-7-1/4 

### (2) As used in this chapter, the terms "judgmentdebtor," "redemptioner," and "purchaser," refer also to their respective successors in interest. 

### Former RCW 6.23.010 (emphasis added). As changed by the amendment in 2013, the statute now reads that a 

### redemptioner includes any claimant having a lien "subsequent inpriority" instead of"subsequent in time" to the foreclosing lien. RCW 6.23.010(1 )(b). The amendment is not at issue inthis appeal. 

### DCR did not claim to be a successorofthejudgmentdebtor, Beckmann. DCR claimed to be a redemptioner underformer RCW 6.23.010(1)(b) as a creditor having a lien on unit 38 "subsequent in time" to the lien on which the property was sold, i.e., subsequentto the Towne lien for the unpaid

assessments. The Condo Group objected to giving DCR status as a redemptioner. This litigation ensued between DCR and The Condo Group. Both parties moved for 

### summaryjudgment. The Condo Group argued that a lien creditor is eligible to be
a redemptioner only ifthe lien held by the creditor is one that was extinguished in the sheriff's sale. The trial court granted The Condo Group's motion, finding that DCR was not a proper redemptioner. DCR appeals. Appellate courts review appeals of summaryjudgmentde novo, performing the same inquiry as the superior court. Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853, 860, 93 P.3d 108 (2004). At the time DCR filed this appeal, ithad a viable theory with roots in Summerhill Vill. Homeowners Ass'n v. Rouqhlev. 166 Wn. App. 625, 289 P.3dNo. 70604-7-1/5
645 (2012). We held in Summerhill that the phrase "subsequent in time" in 

### former RCW 6.23.010(1 )(b) was to be taken literally. Summerhill, 166Wn. App. at 632-33. We followed SummerhiN's interpretation in BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Fulbriqht. 174 Wn. App. 352, 298 P.3d 779 (2013), reversed, Wn.2d , 328 P.3d 895 (2014). Relying on Summerhill, DCR argued that the plain language ofthe statute extended redemption rights on a foreclosed property to the holder of any valid lien created afterthe lien on which the property
was sold inforeclosure. DCR's briefsummarized its theory as follows: DCR is a redemptioner under the statute. DCR is a creditor, because itloaned money to Beckmann. DCR has a lien by the Deed ofTrust itobtainedfrom Beckmann. The lien is on the Property. And the lien is subsequent intime to that on which the sheriffs sale was conducted. DCR is a redemptioner. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Fulbriqht makes DCR's theory no longerviable. The court held that underthe former redemption statute, "it is not relevantwhich lien arises first, but which lien has statutory priority and can subordinate, under certain circumstances, other liens. Every interest 

### extinguished in this mannercomes underthe redemption statute byoperation of law." Fulbriqht, 328 P.3d at 900. The only reasonable way to interpret the 

### phrase "subsequent in time" is to mean "when lien priority is established." Fulbriqht, 328 P.3d at 900. This interpretation gives effectto the policy 

### underlying the right ofredemption, which is to give junior lienholders an 

### opportunity to salvage something from their investment aftertheir title or lienhas 

### been extinguished by a foreclosure sale. Fulbriqht, 328 P.3d at 898.No. 70604-7-1/6 

### DCR's interestwas created nearly eight months afterthe foreclosure sale. Its interestwas not affected in any way by Towne's foreclosure action. Following Fulbriqht, we conclude that DCR is not a proper redemptioner underformer RCW 6.23.010 because DCR did not have a lien extinguished by the foreclosure sale. DCR conceded this result at oral argument. DCR was asked whether 

### "subsequent in time" applied only to those interests extinguished in a foreclosure sale. DCR responded thatthis court's holding inSummerhill allowed for redemption ofnonextinguished liens. Asked how future attempts to create 

### redemption rights after a foreclosure sale might be prevented, DCRresponded thatthe easiestway would be to make the right ofredemption contingent on 

### having an interestextinguished by the foreclosure. The Fulbriqhtdecision did just that in its interpretation of the former redemption statute. 

### The trial court correctly granted summaryjudgmentin favor of The Condo Group.Affirmed. 

# Bedfete,

WE CONCUR: