Way back in January, I authored a post on the legal description of property. People say that blogging generates business, and they’re right. I recently picked up a new case because an agent read that post and referred his client to me. This new case illustrates the complexity of the legal description issue (which I address below), as well as the dangers associated with relying on an agent — or the internet — for legal advice (a topic I will address in another post later this week).
My original post discussed the general principle that a legal description must be included in a contract for the sale of real property in order for that contract to be valid. The point of the post was to encourage buyers and sellers to include the legal description in the contract from its inception so that there was an unequivocally binding contract upon mutual acceptance. Thus, I did not discuss the exceptions to the general rule. In fact, there are several, one of which is frequently applicable given the format of the widely used NWMLS forms.
A contract for the purchase and sale of land need not contain a legal description if it references another document that contains such a description. Bingham v. Sherfey, 38 Wn.2d 886, 889 (1951). This rule is well established. See, e.g., Sunreal, Inc. v. Pong’s Corp., Inc., 2003 WL 21500730 (Div. 1 2003) (quoting Bingham). In the Bingham case, the contract at issue did not contain an adequate legal description. However, it did contain the tax parcel number for the lot at issue. The Court held that the tax assessor in the particular county presumably performed the assessor’s statutory duty and included a legal description for the property in the tax records. Bingham, 38 Wn.2d at 889. Thus, the Court found that reference to the applicable public record (i.e. the property tax records maintained by the county) “furnishes the legal description of the real property involved with sufficient definiteness and certainty” such that the contract was valid. Id.
The NWMLS form contract contains a space to insert the tax parcel number for the property at issue. Thus, even if the contract does not contain a legal description, it very well might contain a tax parcel number. If it does, then the contract probably falls within the exception created by Bingham, and the contract is binding despite the absence of a legal description.
Admittedly, one could make a counterargument. In Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875 (1999), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal description rule first announced in Martin v. Siegel, 35 Wn.2d 223 (1949). Key Design, Inc., 138 Wn.2d at 881-84. Quoting Martin, the Court held that “every contract or agreement involving a sale or conveyance of platted real property must contain . . . the description of such property for the correct lot number(s), block number, city, county, and state.” Id. at 881. Thus, in light of this language, one could argue that a tax parcel number is insufficient. However, Martin was decided two years prior to Bingham. Moreover, the Court in Bingham specifically noted that its holding was consistent with Martin. Bingham, 38 Wn.2d at 889. Thus, a court is unlikely to apply a bright line rule to the legal description requirement. Rather, a court will probably enforce a contract that contains the property’s tax parcel number.
Every purchase and sale agreement should include a legal description so that there is no issue. However, if you are going to dispute the validity of a contract on this basis, you need to be aware of the exeptions to the general rule. As I will discuss further in my next post, you should always consult an attorney — directly, not by reference to a blog — before reaching a conclusion about the validity of a contract.
Please note that this post is not legal advice. You should consult an attorney for specific legal counsel.
It’s much easier to “stick it to the man” when you’ve never met the man.