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

1,742 chars

We hold that the superior court did not err when it ruled the Phase 2 deposit was not part

of the receivership estate. However, we agree with CLS that the superior court erred when it

ordered LGI receive return of its deposit prior to any distributions from the receivership estate.

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court’s entry of a judgment pursuant to a receivership is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. Matter of Applied Restoration, Inc., 28 Wn. App. 2d 881, 891, 539 P.3d 837 (2023),

pet. for rev. filed in No. 1028831 (Mar. 13, 2024). A denial of a motion for reconsideration is also

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Dynamic Res., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 21 Wn. App. 2d 814,

824, 508 P.3d 680 (2022).

A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “‘manifestly unreasonable or

exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Id. (quoting McCoy v. Kent Nursery,

Inc., 163 Wn. App. 744, 758, 260 P.3d 967 (2011), review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1029 (2012)). An

appellate court may affirm a trial court on any basis supported by the record. Eubanks v. Klickitat

County, 181 Wn. App. 615, 619, 326 P.3d 796, review denied, 181 Wn.2d 1012 (2014).

Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Umpqua Bank v.

Shasta Apartments, LLC, 194 Wn. App. 685, 693, 378 P.3d 585, review denied, 186 Wn.2d 1026

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 59088-3-II

(2016). “The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to ‘ascertain and carry out the

Legislature’s intent.’” AURC III, LLC v. Point Ruston Phase II, LLC, 3 Wn.3d 80, 87, 546 P.3d

385 (2024) (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4