Background
Elizabeth Parman purchased the Renata Lane property in 1997 for $117,000. In 2000, she and her then-husband Shawn quitclaimed the property to his parents, Ruth and Robert Parman, who paid no consideration. The family lived on the property together, with Elizabeth and Shawn occupying the main house while Ruth and Robert lived in an in-law apartment. Over the years, Elizabeth spent an additional $143,000 on the property to develop it as a horse farm.
Following her 2017 divorce from Shawn, Ruth revoked her will and left the Renata Lane property solely to Shawn, explicitly excluding Elizabeth. In 2018, Elizabeth filed an unjust enrichment action against the Parmans, alleging they were unjustly enriched by excluding her from the property despite her substantial financial investments and labor. She requested judgment for the value of her expenditures and sought an equitable lien on the property. Elizabeth filed a notice of lis pendens in 2019 to preserve her claim.
After the trial court initially denied two motions to cancel the lis pendens, and following a first appeal in which Elizabeth’s unjust enrichment claim was restored, the trial court granted a third motion to cancel the lis pendens, ruling that Elizabeth’s unjust enrichment action was not “an action affecting title to real property” under RCW 4.28.328.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s cancellation of the lis pendens. The court held that an unjust enrichment action seeking an equitable lien, where the plaintiff’s assets and labor have been used to enhance the value of specific real property, constitutes “an action affecting title to real property” under RCW 4.28.320 and RCW 4.28.328(2), and therefore supports a valid lis pendens.
The court explained that a lis pendens serves to give constructive notice that property is in dispute and “freeze[s] the status of the property in time.” The court reasoned that if Elizabeth prevails in her unjust enrichment claim and obtains an equitable lien, she would have the right to force a judicial sale of the property to satisfy the judgment, thereby affecting the Parmans’ ownership rights and demonstrating the action affects title to real property.
The court relied on § 56 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, which permits equitable liens where a claimant’s assets or services enhance property value and where a “transactional nexus” exists between the unjust enrichment and the specific property. Here, Elizabeth’s years of financial investment and labor directly enhanced the Renata Lane property’s value, satisfying this requirement.
Key Takeaways
- An unjust enrichment claim with a sufficient connection to real property can support an equitable lien and, consequently, a lis pendens—even before judgment is entered.
- The law of the case doctrine did not prevent either party from relitigating the lis pendens issue, as the first appellate decision dismissed the Parmans’ cross-appeal as untimely and the underlying merits were dicta.
- An equitable lien “affects title” to real property because the lien holder can obtain a judicial sale of the property to satisfy the judgment, thereby burdening the owner’s title rights.
- Neither party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal; Elizabeth had reasonable, good faith basis for filing the lis pendens, and the Parmans did not prevail on their claim that it was wrongfully filed.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Washington law on a previously unsettled question: whether unjust enrichment claims seeking equitable liens can support a lis pendens. By adopting a broad interpretation of “actions affecting title to real property,” the court aligns Washington with jurisdictions like Arizona that recognize equitable liens as affecting title when there is a basis for imposing the lien. This provides important protection for parties who invest substantially in improving another’s real property under assumptions about future ownership or compensation that prove illusory.
The holding has practical significance for family situations and informal arrangements involving real property improvements. It permits plaintiffs to preserve their claims against real property through a lis pendens when they have invested money or labor to enhance that property’s value, preventing the property owner from conveying the property free of the pending claim. However, the court emphasized its decision applies specifically to cases where there is a clear “transactional nexus” between the unjust enrichment and the property at issue.