Opinion ID: 1196521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the description

Text: [1] Whether the description in a tax sale notice is sufficient is a question of fact. In re Foreclosure of Liens, 117 Wn.2d at 87; Centralia v. Miller, 31 Wn.2d 417, 197 P.2d 244 (1948). This court remanded for a determination of the sufficiency of the property description in light of the standards for sufficiency contained in Washington case law: The trial court must determine, taking all the circumstances into account, if the property description read as a whole provided an intelligent means of identifying the property and was not misleading. If a person of ordinary intelligence could identify the described property with reasonable certainty, the description was adequate. Liens, at 87. In addition, this court instructed the trial court that in determining if a property description is sufficient, the description should be liberally construed and extrinsic evidence may be consulted. Liens, at 87. [2] Where the trial court has weighed the evidence, appellate review is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and if so, whether the findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment. Tacoma v. State, 117 Wn.2d 348, 361, 816 P.2d 7 (1991). Charles Day, a land use technician with Seattle's Department of Construction and Land Use, testified that 88 Virginia was the address assigned on the building permit for the Market Place North Condominiums. Day also testified that the address was assigned to the entire residential and commercial condominium complex bounded by Virginia Street, First Avenue, and Western Avenue. He stated that a unitary or principal address remains with a condominium project throughout the construction and permitting process, and throughout the life of the property unless it is officially changed. Dick Hergert, supervisor of the commercial appraisal section of the Department of Assessments, testified that the assessor's office uses only one address for large condominium projects which front on several streets. He confirmed that 88 Virginia Street was the initial address for the Market Place North Condominiums and that this address was maintained for the entire complex even after the individual units were sold. For example, the parcel at issue here is designated as Commercial Unit # 1 of the Market Place North Condominiums, 88 Virginia Street. [1] The evidence clearly supports the conclusion that the property description Gaffner received, read as a whole, provided an intelligent means of identifying the property and was not misleading. In sum, a review of the record concerning the sufficiency of the property description reveals substantial evidence supporting the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, and the order reinstating the foreclosure judgment and tax sale. [2] Since the property description provided an intelligent means of identifying the property and was not misleading, the statutory jurisdictional requirements were met. The trial court properly reinstated the foreclosure judgment and tax sale.