Opinion ID: 987097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ill Court of Appeals Proceedings

Text: Baseline appealed all decisions of the trial court to Division Three of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals took review and subsequently issued a 7 No. 87395-0 partially published opinion, Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC, 167 Wn. App. 677, 275 P.3d 328 (2012). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's holding that the Agreement fell afoul of the statute of frauds, as the parties had not contested that issue. /d. at 690. Turning to the award of restitution, the Court of Appeals drew on the wellestablished Washington principle that a vendee under an agreement for the sale and ·purchase of property which does not satisfy the statute of frauds, cannot recover payments made upon the purchase price if the vendor has not repudiated the contract but is ready, willing, and able to perform in accordance therewith, even though the contract is not enforceable against the vendee either at law or in equity. Schweiter, 57 Wn.2d at 711 (quoting Dubke v. Kassa, 29 Wn.2d 486, 487, 187 P.2d 611 (1947)). Pointing to this court's decision in Johnson v. Puget Mill Co., 28 Wash. 515, 68 P. 876 (1902), the Court of Appeals held that the vendor's repudiation or failure to perform must be established before the purchaser may recover restitution. Kofmeh/, 167 Wn. App. at 692. That is, [t]o demonstrate that Baseline's retention of the earnest money was unjust, [Kofmehl] must prove that Baseline was unwilling to perform its obligations under the Agreement. Establishing the meaning of the Agreement is an essential part of his proof. /d. at 695-96. The Court of Appeals then determined that Kofmehl had not carried his burden. Pointing to the plain language of Kofmehl's offer and the Agreement, the 8 No. 87395-0 testimony of the parties' brokers, and other evidence in the record, the Court of Appeals held that Kofmehl had not established as a matter of law that the Agreement envisioned the sale of the 3.93 acres, or that Baseline would actually construct a sewer line to the property. /d. at 696~97. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that summary judgment in Kofmehl's favor was improper. Finally, in the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Baseline was not entitled to summary judgment either. Rejecting Baseline's claim that the term accessibility of sewer had a plain and ordinary meaning, the Court of Appeals held that it could not determine as a matter of law that Baseline had been ready, willing, and able to perform on the Agreement. State v. Kofmeh/, No. 29683-1-111, slip op. (unpublished portion) at 25-26 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2012). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, reversed the trial court's orders of restitution and attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings. Kofmehl timely filed a petition for review by this Court. We granted review. Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC, 175 Wn.2d 1005, 285 P.3d 885 (2012).