## Facts

- A vendor sold Snohomish County property interests through two separate 1979 real-estate (installment) contracts.
- In March 1979, the first vendees (Whitsells) agreed to buy land including 50 feet of lakefront south of a road; the contract mistakenly described a 125-foot shoreline strip instead of the intended 50-foot strip.
- The Whitsells deliberately delayed recording their contract and did not record it until October 1982.
- In December 1979, the vendor entered a second real-estate contract with the later vendees (Clarkes) for a different parcel north of the road and the lakefront property; the Clarkes intended to purchase the entire 125-foot shoreline strip.
- The Clarkes recorded their contract in February 1980, more than two years before the Whitsells recorded.
- The parties did not discover the overlapping descriptions until 1986, when it became apparent both recorded contracts purported to include the same 125-foot shoreland, including the disputed 50-foot portion.

## Issues

1. Whether vendees under an executory real-estate (installment) contract can qualify as bona fide purchasers for value under Washington’s recording act, such that a later purchaser who records first without notice takes priority over a prior unrecorded contract vendee.
2. Whether 1984 amendments clarifying that executory real-estate contracts are recordable “conveyances” apply retroactively to a priority dispute arising from contracts executed before 1984.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment for the Whitsells.
- The court held the Clarkes could qualify as bona fide purchasers for value despite holding only an executory real-estate contract.
- The court concluded the 1984 recording-act amendments were curative and applied retroactively, confirming that executory real-estate contracts are recordable conveyances for recording-act priority purposes.
- Because the Clarkes recorded first and lacked notice of the Whitsells’ earlier unrecorded interest when they purchased and recorded, the Clarkes’ interest had priority in the disputed portion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington’s recording act, a good-faith purchaser for value without actual or constructive notice of a prior interest may take priority over that prior interest if the purchaser records first.
- A vendee’s interest under an executory real-estate (installment) contract may be treated as a recordable property interest capable of supporting bona fide purchaser protection.
- Curative statutory amendments that clarify recordability and priority rules may be applied retroactively when intended to confirm existing policy rather than change substantive rights.

## Conclusion

The court held that purchasers under an executory real-estate contract can obtain bona fide purchaser protection under the recording act and, applying the 1984 curative amendments retroactively, awarded priority to the later purchasers who recorded first without notice of the earlier unrecorded contract interest.


Tomlinson v. Clarke, 803 P.2d 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991)