## Facts

- Feider siblings partitioned inherited real property; Francis Feider received a 110-acre parcel adjoining his brother Andrew Feider’s land, and Andrew’s access was by easement across Francis’s parcel.
- As part of the partition-related arrangements, Francis and Andrew executed a written agreement granting Andrew a right of first refusal if Francis decided to sell Francis’s parcel.
- Andrew later died; his children claimed to succeed to Andrew’s interest under the right of first refusal.
- On March 17, 1980, Francis sold the parcel to Karl and Bertha Hecht without first offering it to Andrew’s children.
- On June 13, 1980, Ted Feider (one of Andrew’s children and an executor for an estate) recorded the right-of-first-refusal agreement, after the sale to the Hechts.
- Andrew’s children sued to enforce the right of first refusal and to obtain relief affecting the sale to the Hechts.
- Francis asserted the provision was intended to benefit only Andrew personally and argued the provision was unenforceable, including as an improper restraint on alienation and as against the purchasers.

## Issues

1. Whether the right of first refusal survived Andrew’s death and was enforceable by Andrew’s children as successors rather than being purely personal to Andrew.
2. Whether the right of first refusal was invalid as an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
3. Whether, given recording after the sale, the right of first refusal could be enforced against the Hechts as purchasers (including questions of notice and purchaser status).

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Francis and the Hechts.
- The court held the right of first refusal was not invalid as an unlawful restraint on alienation.
- The court rejected the view that the covenant necessarily terminated at Andrew’s death, concluding it was potentially enforceable by his children based on the agreement and surrounding circumstances.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings because unresolved matters remained, including issues relevant to enforcement against the purchasers.

## Legal Principles

- A right of first refusal that does not bar transfer but requires an initial opportunity for the holder to purchase is not, by that feature alone, an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
- Changed economic conditions, including later increases in land value, do not alone render a preexisting right of first refusal or option unenforceable.
- Whether a preemptive purchase right is personal to the named grantee or enforceable by heirs or successors turns on the instrument’s language and the transaction context; absent clear limits, such rights may be enforceable by successors.
- Summary judgment is improper where the agreement is legally capable of enforcement and material questions remain, including purchaser-related questions such as notice.

## Conclusion

The court held that a partition-related right of first refusal was valid and not an unlawful restraint on alienation, could be enforced by the original holder’s heirs absent clear personal-only limitation, and required remand because summary judgment prematurely foreclosed unresolved enforcement issues, including as to subsequent purchasers.


Feider v. Feider, 699 P.2d 801 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)