Opinion ID: 2463551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver of the Warranty To Defend

Text: ¶ 21 Kiss alternatively argues that the Popchois waived the warranty of defense and other warranties of the deed. Specifically, he argues that the Popchois failed to disclose survey results that showed the fence as an encroachment and that this constitutes a waiver of the deed's warranties. Kiss testified that, had he known about the discrepancy between the placement of the fence and the actual property line, he would not have proceeded with the sale. The Popchois did not have any apparent knowledge of the legal effect of the fence, which had been built by a previous owner of the Kiss lot, not by the Edmonsons. Specifically, the Popchois did not know that the location of the fence implicated a viable adverse possession claim. ¶ 22 Kiss's claim that the Popchois waived the warranties of the deed is without merit. At least since 1901, Washington courts have followed the rule that a grantee does not waive the covenants of a deed by having knowledge of a defect. Edmonson, 155 Wash.App. at 389, 228 P.3d 780 (citing W. Coast Mfg. & Inv. Co. v. W. Coast Improvement Co., 25 Wash. 627, 637, 66 P. 97 (1901)); accord Fagan v. Walters, 115 Wash. 454, 457, 197 P. 635 (1921). Such covenants warrant against known as well as unknown defects, and grantees with knowledge of an encumbrance have the right to rely on the covenants in the deed for their protection. Foley v. Smith, 14 Wash.App. 285, 292, 539 P.2d 874 (1975). In Foley, both the grantee and grantor had knowledge of the defect, but as the Court of Appeals noted in this case, This is a distinction without a difference. Edmonson, 155 Wash.App. at 389, 228 P.3d 780. ¶ 23 We hold that the Popchois did not waive the warranty of defense of the title by failing to notify Kiss of the survey that showed that the cyclone fence was set north of the actual property line.