Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,100 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Coleman v. Hoffman, 64 P.3d 65 (2003)
Generally, a mortgagee, such as a bank, doesn’t have a duty of care to protect others from unsafe conditions on the property and won’t be liable for injuries caused by those conditions. But what if the mortgagee brings a foreclosure action to obtain possession of the property? Can the mortgagee then be liable for injuries on the property as a mortgagee in possession? The Washington Court of Appeals considered this question in Coleman versus Hoffman.
Roberta Coleman lived with her 6-month-old daughter in a second-floor apartment at the Soundview II Apartment Complex in Pierce County, Washington.
In 1996, the complex’s owners, David Brown and Steve Clem, received a loan for refinancing. The loan was funded by the law firm of Anderson Hunter and secured by a deed of trust that named its arranger, Olympic Coast Investment, Incorporated, or OCI, as beneficiary.
A few months later, Brown and Clem defaulted on the loan, and Anderson Hunter brought a foreclosure action. Anderson Hunter paid utility and repair costs and had OCI collect and forward rent money. Further, Anderson Hunter hired Craig Hoffman to repair and manage the complex.
In July of 1997, a 9-year-old girl living in the complex was pushing Coleman’s daughter in a stroller on a balcony attached to the apartment. As the girl was pushing the stroller, the stroller’s wheel got caught in a rotten portion of carpet on the balcony, causing the stroller to tip forward and send Coleman’s daughter through a broken balcony railing to the ground below. As a result of the fall, the daughter sustained severe injuries.
Later that month, Hoffman purchased the property from Anderson Hunter at a trustee’s sale.
Subsequently, Coleman, individually and on behalf of her daughter, sued Anderson Hunter, Hoffman, and OCI in state superior court based on premises liability.
Following discovery, Anderson Hunter and others moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. Coleman appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 42,100 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Coleman v. Hoffman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Теги
Coleman v. Hoffmanquimbeelaw casecase brief examplebrief casecase briefpress briefcase summarieslegal briefhow to brief a casecase brief templatelegal brief casehow to write a case brieflegal brief examplesample case briefcase brief formatexample of a brieflaw briefslegal brief definitionwhat is a brief in lawwhat is a case briefcourt briefbrief definition lawlegal brief templatefacts of the casecase summary example
