Opinion ID: 3175035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Court ofAppeals

Text: On appeal, Erickson claimed a number of errors, which the Court of Appeals summarized as follows: (1) [T]he trial court relied on inadmissible evidence, (2) Financial Freedom's deed of trust was not properly notarized and thus failed to attach to the property, (3) One West failed to prove it holds the note and cannot foreclose on the deed of trust alone, and (4) Shelley Bruna lacked the authority to encumber property that Bill McKee no longer owned because (a) Idaho law does not authorize a conservator for a nonresident to encumber real property outside of the state of Idaho, (b) Financial Freedom had actual or constructive knowledge that Maureen Erickson owned the property, and (c) OneWest's interest in the property is not superior to Financial Freedom's since One West was not a bona fide purchaser. One West Bank, FSB v. Erickson, 184 Wn. App. 462,476-77, 337 P.3d 1101 (2014), review granted, 183 Wn.2d 1001, 349 P.3d 857 (2015). The Court of Appeals concluded one issue was dispositive-that the Idaho court lacked authority to authorize a conservator to encumber the Spokane residence-and reversed on that ground without addressing the remaining issues. !d. at 477. To reach this decision, the court analyzed Idaho law and concluded that 9 One West Bank, FSB v. Erickson, No. 91283-1 conservators in that state have no statutory authority to encumber a nonresident's property outside of Idaho and noted that the undisputed facts show that McKee was a Washington resident throughout the conservatorship proceedings. Id. The Court of Appeals went on to address the issue of full faith and credit, stating, Even if Idaho law authorized the Idaho courts to approve a mortgage on property in Washington State, we would rule to the contrary because we are not bound by a foreign state's order concerning property here. Id. at 479. For support, the court relied on ancient principles and cases suggesting that the courts of one state cannot directly affect the legal title to land situated in another state. Id. at 47980. The court gave three reasons for rejecting OneWest's claim that Erickson could not collaterally attack the conservator's authority. First, the record did not demonstrate that the Idaho court ruled on McKee's domicile or its jurisdiction to encumber Washington property. Second, the court questioned whether Erickson was a party to the Idaho proceeding (and therefore whether the Idaho court could bind her). Finally, the court recognized that even if the first two claims were true, it would still reject the Idaho court's ruling on full faith and credit grounds because the Idaho court did not have jurisdiction to encumber Washington property. Id. at 484-85. Finding no disputed issues of material fact, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment order for OneWest and instead granted summary judgment in favor of Erickson. 10 One West Bank, FSB v. Erickson, No. 91283-1 One West filed a motion for reconsideration rmsmg three issues. First, One West asserted that the parties did not have the opportunity to fully brief the full faith and credit issue and claimed this court's decision in In re Marriage of Kowalewski, 163 Wn.2d 542, 182 P.3d 959 (2008) should control. Second, One West disputed the court's reading of Idaho law and claimed that the conservator had statutory authority to encumber the property at issue. Third, OneWest requested an alternative remedy of remand so One West could further pursue equitable arguments. After the Court of Appeals summarily denied OneWest's motion for reconsideration, One West petitioned this court for review, raising multiple issues but mainly focusing on whether a Washington court must give full faith and credit to an Idaho court order encumbering Washington property. We granted review. OneWest Bank, 183 Wn.2d 1001.