## Facts

- Roberta Lynn Coleman lived with her infant daughter, Makalia-Ann Devonajahe Paige, at the Sound View II apartment complex in Pierce County, Washington.
- The complex’s owners defaulted on a loan funded through a law firm profit-sharing trust; after default, foreclosure was initiated.
- After default, an entity associated with the loan began collecting tenant rents and forwarding them to the lender/trust.
- The lender/trust began paying utilities and certain repair expenses and retained Craig Hoffman to manage and repair the property.
- Hoffman fired the existing on-site manager, took over maintenance responsibilities, visited the property, hired contractors, and oversaw work.
- On July 4, 1997, a nine-year-old pushed the infant in a stroller along an exterior balcony common area outside Coleman’s unit.
- The stroller wheel caught in rotten carpet, lurched into a deteriorated balcony railing, and the child fell through the broken railing to the ground below, suffering serious injuries.
- Coleman sued multiple defendants, alleging they functioned as possessors of the premises and failed to keep common areas reasonably safe.

## Issues

1. Whether the lender/trust and Hoffman exercised sufficient possession, dominion, and control over the apartment complex to be treated as possessors subject to common-law premises liability for dangerous conditions in common areas.
2. Whether the rent-collecting entity’s activities constituted possession or control sufficient to impose common-law premises-liability duties.

## Decision

- The court reversed summary judgment for the lender/trust and Hoffman, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether they actually possessed and controlled the premises.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the rent-collecting entity, holding that rent collection and remittance, without more, did not establish possession or control.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the premises-liability claims against the lender/trust and Hoffman.

## Legal Principles

- Premises-liability duties generally attach to a possessor of land—one who occupies the land with intent to control it, has been in occupation with intent to control it, or has the right to immediate occupation and exercises control.
- For “mortgagee in possession”-type liability, the operative inquiry is actual possession and control, not the party’s label, title, or security interest.
- Actions indicating dominion and control—such as paying operating expenses, directing repairs, and installing or removing on-site management—can support a finding of possession sufficient to create premises-liability duties.
- Mere collection and forwarding of rents, without evidence of control over maintenance or day-to-day operations, is insufficient to establish possession for premises-liability purposes.
- On summary judgment, if reasonable factfinders could differ on whether a defendant exercised dominion and control, the question of possession must be resolved at trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence of paying expenses and directing management and repairs created triable questions about whether the lender/trust and its retained manager possessed and controlled the apartment complex, while an entity limited to collecting and forwarding rents did not, as a matter of law, assume premises-liability duties.


Coleman v. Hoffman, 115 Wash. App. 853, 64 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)