Otis Housing Association, Inc. v. Ha

by

Facts: Respondent John Ha filed an unlawful detainer action against the petitioner Otis Housing Association, Inc. in the Superior Court for Spokane County after the Otis Housing Association ceased paying rent to Ha for occupancy of the Otis Hotel. The trial court awarded possession of the Otis Hotel to Ha, ruling that the Otis Housing Association had not successfully exercised an option to purchase the hotel and therefore was not protected by the Real Estate Contract Forfeiture Act (Washington Revised Code ยง61.30). Subsequent to the trial court’s decision, the Otis Housing Association filed a motion to compel Ha to submit to arbitration pursuant to the agreement that had given the Otis Housing Association the option to purchase the hotel. The trial court ruled that the arbitration clause had expired when the Otis Housing Association failed to exercise the purchase option and rejected the motion. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Otis Housing Association appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does the Otis Housing Association have a right to compel arbitration pursuant to the purchase agreement?

Conclusion: Justice Chambers’ opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, holding that as the Otis Housing Association had already litigated the issue of whether it had exercised the option to purchase the hotel as a defense to Ha’s unlawful detainer action, allowing it to seek to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement would be allowing it to relitigate the issue in a different forum.

Docket No. 80626-8 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 25076-8)

Petitioner: Otis Housing Ass'n, Inc.

Respondent: Ha

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Audio: Washington Supreme Court

Decided: Thursday, February 5th, 2009

Prevailing Party: Ha (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Gerry Alexander: Majority

Alexander

Charles Johnson: Majority

Johnson

Barbara Madsen: Dissent

Madsen

Richard Sanders: Dissent

Sanders

MajorityTom Chambers: Majority

Chambers
(Majority)

Susan Owens: Majority

Owens

Mary Fairhurst: Dissent

Fairhurst

James Johnson: Majority

Johnson

DissentDebra Stephens: Dissent

Stephens
(Dissent)

Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.