-11-
permission to do so.2 However, petitioners did not claim that
they had the right to rent the W. 22d property to anyone else.
b. Whether Petitioners Had a Duty To Maintain the
Residence
Mr. Blanton testified that petitioners understood that they
were responsible for the W. 22d property once they moved into it
in July 1989. In the purchase agreement, Hagan made no
warranties as to the condition of the house or whether it was
habitable or in compliance with code or laws. We infer from this
that Hagan did not have a duty to maintain the residence after
petitioners signed the purchase agreement, and that petitioners
had the duty to maintain the residence after they took possession
of it.
c. Whether Petitioners Were Responsible for Insuring
the Property
The record contains no evidence that petitioners provided or
were responsible for providing insurance on the W. 22d property
before escrow closed on January 31, 1990. Petitioners do not
contend that they were responsible for insuring the W. 22d
property before that date.
d. Whether Petitioners Bore the Risk of Loss
Petitioners do not contend that they bore the risk of loss
for the W. 22d property before title passed. Under Washington
State law, the right to possess does not necessarily include the
2 We note, however, that it is not clear whether Hagan,
whose own title was clouded by Deglow's ownership claim, had
authority to vest petitioners with possession.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011