Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 59088-3-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2059088-3-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,721 chars

3
Construction Loan Services II, LLC, as the authorized servicer and agent for Builders Capital
Opportunity Fund, LLC, is the appellant in this appeal. Construction Loan Services, LLC is a
related, but separate, entity from Construction Loan Services II, LLC. Construction Loan Services,
LLC originated the loan to ECM. Construction Loan Services, LLC later transferred all of its
rights, interest, and title in the loan to Builders Capital Opportunity Fund, LLC. For the purposes
of this opinion, and to avoid confusion, the appellant and its related entities will be referred to
collectively as “CLS.”
4
A receiver is “a person appointed by the court as the court’s agent, and subject to the court’s
direction, to take possession of, manage, or dispose of property of a person.” RCW 7.60.005(10).
A “person” may be an individual or an entity. RCW 7.60.005(8).

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 59088-3-II

The Receiver is hereby appointed as general receiver with exclusive possession and
control over [ECM]’s property, wherever located, including without limitation the
property identified in Exhibit A hereto, and all rights, entitlements, leases, interests,
contracts, contracts for sale, and business affairs associated with and relating to
[ECM]’s property (collectively, the “Estate”).

CP at 2 (boldface omitted) (underlining in original). Exhibit A identified the Property.

In January 2021, LGI moved for an order from the superior court to enforce the PSA. LGI

argued that its only remaining obligation under the PSA for Phase 2 was to pay the full purchase

price of $4,500,000, which it was prepared to do. The Receiver objected to LGI’s motion, arguing