Opinion ID: 2567473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's finding of fact regarding the date on which the final payment was made

Text: ¶ 17 Findings of fact are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard which requires that there be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that a finding of fact is true. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 149 Wash.2d at 879, 73 P.3d 369. If substantial evidence supports a finding of fact, an appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id. at 879-80, 73 P.3d 369. ¶ 18 The trial court found the $1,000 check was reissued to Jolly a couple of weeks after December 21, 2004. CP at 103. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating Pardee made the final option payment on November 10, 2004. The Court of Appeals subsequently amended its opinion, determining that the last check was cashed on January 11, 2005 based on evidence presented to the trial court postverdict in a motion for a new trial. The time of the final payment is a question of fact, and our review is whether the trial court's finding was supported by substantial evidence. ¶ 19 Pardee argues the trial court's finding that the final payment was made a couple of weeks after December 21 was supported by substantial evidence and the Court of Appeals erred by substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Pardee also argues that the final option payment occurred in January 2005 because the issuance of a check merely suspends an underlying obligation. Jolly argues the final payment was made in November because Pardee's obligation was discharged when he tendered the checks, not when he reissued the checks. ¶ 20 The trial court's finding that the last payment was made a couple of weeks after December 21, 2004 is supported by substantial evidence. The issuance of an uncertified check suspends the underlying obligation until the check is paid or certified. [7] RCW 62A.3-310(b)(1). If a check is dishonored and the person entitled to enforce the check is the obligee of the obligation for which the check was taken, the obligee may enforce either the instrument or the obligation. RCW 62A.3-310(b)(3). Both parties testified that on December 21, 2004, Pardee assisted Jolly by reissuing the $10,000 check. Pardee testified that a few weeks after the holidays he met with Jolly again and reissued the $1,000 check. Jolly agreed that a second meeting took place after the holidays. Based on this testimony, the trial court found that [a]lthough Mr. Jolly's testimony was vague in terms of the exact date, at most his testimony was a couple of weeks after the [$] 10,000.00 check was reissued he requested Mr. Pardee assist him with cashing a $1,000.00 [check] he had received and failed to negotiate in a timely manner. CP at 103. Substantial evidence exists to support the trial court's finding that the final payment was a couple of weeks after December 21 and the Court of Appeals erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. [8] 2. The Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the trial court's finding that Pardee notified Jolly of his intent to exercise the option contract at the same time as the final payment and, in turn, properly reversed the trial court's conclusion that Pardee exercised the option in accordance with the terms of the option contract ¶ 21 The option contract clearly provides that the optionee could pay the remaining balance at any time and must, at the same time, exercise its option to purchase the Property by giving written notice to the Seller at the address to which the monthly option payments are made. [9] Ex. 1, ¶ 3. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals reasoned at the same time meant contemporaneous. Pardee, slip op. at 4. The trial court found, [t]he written notice was sent to Mr. Jolly contemporaneous with the re-issuance of the $1,000.00 check. CP at 103-04. This finding was based on testimony that the $1,000 check was reissued a couple of weeks after December 21, 2004 and the notice was sent by certified mail on January 14, 2005. [10] The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the written notice postmarked January 14, 2005 was not contemporaneous with cashing the check on January 11, 2005. [11] ¶ 22 Pardee failed to strictly comply with the terms of the option. Pardee's final payment was made a couple of weeks after December 21, 2004. CP at 103. A couple of weeks after December 21, 2004 was approximately January 4, 2005. Notice was received around January 15, 2005. Option contracts are to be strictly construed and time is of the essence. Andersen, 181 Wash. at 280, 43 P.2d 19. Strictly construing the contract, it is clear that Pardee failed to provide notice of his intent to exercise the option when he made the final payment because more than a week elapsed between the two events. The trial court's finding that notice was given contemporaneous with the final payment was not supported by substantial evidence, and the Court of Appeals, although improperly modifying the finding of fact regarding the date of the final payment, did not err in holding Pardee did not provide written notice at the same time as the final payment. As such, the Court of Appeals correctly determined Pardee failed to properly exercise his option to purchase the real estate in question.