Opinion ID: 2593436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Emily Lane

Text: ¶ 7 On January 22, 1998, Colonial Development, LLC (Colonial) was formed as a limited liability company for the purpose of developing and selling the Emily Lane condominiums. On December 22, 2004, the members of Colonial voted to dissolve the company effective the same date. On December 31, 2004, Colonial filed a certification of cancellation with the secretary of state. ¶ 8 About five months later, the Emily Lane Townhomes Condominium Association (Condominium Association) served Colonial with a notice of construction defects under chapter 64.50 RCW. On July 19, 2005, the Condominium Association filed suit against Colonial. In its answer, Colonial included in its defenses the fact that it was a dissolved [sic] limited liability company not subject to suit. The Condominium Association thereafter amended its complaint to include claims against the individual members, asserting, among other things, improper winding up of the limited liability company, fraudulent concealment, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and it sought to pierce the corporate veil. [1] Clerk's Papers at 603-21; Emily Lane's Answer to Pet. for Review at 6. ¶ 9 On June 7, 2006, Colonial, its members, and two individually named defendants moved for summary judgment. At this time, RCW 25.15.303 had just become effective. The Condominium Association argued that under the Act claims against a canceled limited liability company never abate. It also argued that RCW 25.15.303 applies retroactively to revive barred claims. The trial court denied Colonial's motion for summary judgment. As to the members and individually named defendants, the trial court granted summary judgment. The court then certified the partial summary judgment as appropriate for discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(4). The Condominium Association sought cross-discretionary review of dismissal of the members and the individually named defendants. ¶ 10 The Court of Appeals granted discretionary review of the trial court's ruling denying Colonial's motion for summary judgment and, in the interests of judicial economy, also granted review of the summary judgment dismissing the individual members and entities that formed Colonial. The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of summary judgment as to Colonial in light of its decision in Chadwick Farms, saying it saw no reason to treat a member dissolved and cancelled company differently than an administratively dissolved and cancelled company. Emily Lane, 139 Wash.App. at 318, 160 P.3d 1073. As to the individual defendants, the court limited review solely to the question whether the members [of Colonial] were immune from liability as individuals. Id. at 319, 160 P.3d 1073. The court held that [t]o the extent the trial court's summary judgment dismissed the claims against individual members of Colonial on the basis that the [limited liability company] structure provided immunity from liability, it was error. Id. ¶ 11 Colonial sought discretionary review.