§70.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§70.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section addresses the limited Washington case law analyzing rule 70 and gives several examples describing the application of CR 70 by federal courts.

(1)Washington

Although neither decision deals directly with the application of the rule, two Washington cases define and limit the scope of CR 70 with respect to property located outside the state of Washington. It appears that a court with personal jurisdiction may order a party before it to execute a deed conveying title to real property situated outside the state, but a court cannot effectively enter an order on its own that conveys real property outside of Washington's borders. Alaska Airlines v. Molitor, 43 Wn.2d 657,263 P.2d 276 (1953);Donaldson v. Greenwood, 40 Wn.2d 238, 242 P.2d 1038 (1952). While noting this distinction, other authors have anticipated that Washington courts would not hesitate to order a party to perform acts to make judgments effective with respect to all species of property other than land outside the state. 14 Karl E. Tegland, Washington Practice: Civil Procedure §2:5 (2d ed. 2009). Indeed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 has been interpreted to allow a court to compel performance outside of its jurisdiction by ordering sequestration of the assets of the party before it that are within the court's jurisdiction. Kroese v. Gen. Steel...