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

1,786 chars

6
CLS filed a notice of appeal of the superior court’s May 11, 2023 Order and motion for
reconsideration. Following CLS’s appeal, LGI filed a motion to this court to determine
appealability. LGI argued that CLS incorrectly filed a notice of appeal, appealing only portions
of an order in a case that was not yet final. LGI requested this court determine whether the May
11, 2023 Order was appealable as a matter of right or whether the appeal should be converted to a
Notice of Discretionary Review.

We determined that absent a CR 54(b) ruling from the superior court, the matter was not
appealable as a matter of right. However, if the superior court entered a CR 54(b) ruling, then the
order was appealable. In August 2023, CLS moved for a CR 54(b) determination from the superior
court and to stay enforcement of the superior court’s May 11, 2023 Order. Additionally, CLS
requested that the $450,000 be held in the court registry pending the appeal. During the motion
hearing, the court determined that good reason existed to retain the $450,000 in the court registry
pending appeal. The superior court also entered a CR 54(b) determination for the purposes of this
appeal.

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 59088-3-II

LGI’s allegedly unsecured claim against the receivership estate to be paid ahead of CLS’s first

position, secured claim.

LGI argues that the superior court correctly held that the Phase 2 deposit was not property

of the receivership estate and it was appropriate for the superior court to look to bankruptcy law

for guidance in its holding. Furthermore, LGI asserts that the superior court properly held that

LGI should receive its Phase 2 deposit prior to any distributions from the receivership estate.