USA Foreclosure Wiki

In re King County Foreclosure of Liens (1991)

4 min read

In re King County Foreclosure of Liens (1991)

Citation: 117 Wn.2d 77, 811 P.2d 945 (1991) (Docket No. 57375-1) · Court: Supreme Court of Washington (en banc; opinion by Durham, J.) · Decided: June 13, 1991

The leading washington authority on when a tax-foreclosure judgment and the resulting tax deed are void for defective notice. A county’s failure to meet the statutory content of tax-foreclosure notice — here, an inadequate property description — can deprive the court of jurisdiction over the res and render the judgment, sale, and tax deed void, beyond the reach of the estoppel-by-deed statute (RCW 84.64.180).

Facts

The proceeding arose from King County’s foreclosure of liens for delinquent real property taxes for the years 1985 through 1988 (and some prior years). Various intervenors and appellants — including parties (Jack Kahn et al.) and lenders (Key Bank of Puget Sound et al.) holding interests in foreclosed parcels — challenged the validity of foreclosure judgments and resulting tax deeds, contending the foreclosure notices contained an inaccurate/insufficient property description and other defects. A mortgagee also argued its own mistake in failing to pay the tax should excuse the default.

Holding

A tax foreclosure by a county is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction over the res must clearly appear. To obtain jurisdiction and enter judgment, the notice must contain a sufficiently accurate property description; a judgment lacking an adequate description is void on its face and may be attacked by anyone with a direct interest in the property. The estoppel-by-deed statute (RCW 84.64.180) does not bar setting aside a sale where the foreclosure judgment is void — if the judgment is void, “it is as if the tax deed never existed.” The mortgagee’s own failure to pay the tax was not grounds to vacate the judgment. Because the record contained insufficient findings on whether the property description was adequate, the Court remanded for a factual determination of the description’s sufficiency.

Reasoning

  • In rem jurisdiction depends on notice. Because tax foreclosure operates against the property, the statutory notice (including an accurate property description) is what confers jurisdiction; a fatally defective description leaves the court without power to enter a valid judgment.
  • Three functions of the description. An accurate description (1) informs the owner of the claim, (2) alerts prospective buyers of the impending sale, and (3) enables proper execution of the resulting tax deed.
  • Void judgments are not cured by the deed. RCW 84.64.180’s curative/estoppel effect presupposes a valid judgment; it cannot validate a sale founded on a void judgment.
  • No relief for the negligent lienholder. A mortgagee’s own oversight in not paying the tax is not a ground to vacate the foreclosure.

Practical impact

  • For investors/operators: A washington tax deed carries latent void-judgment risk if the underlying foreclosure notice’s property description (or other jurisdictional content) was defective; such a deed can be attacked by any direct-interest holder and is not saved by RCW 84.64.180. Verify the description and notice content in the foreclosure file before relying on or insuring the title. See quiet-title-after-tax-sale.
  • For former owners / lienholders: A jurisdictionally defective description supports setting aside the judgment, sale, and deed — but a lienholder’s own failure to pay the tax is not, by itself, a basis to vacate.

Good-law status

Still good law as of last_verified 2026-06-02. A published en banc Washington Supreme Court decision, repeatedly cited on void tax-foreclosure judgments; not overruled. (Distinct from the 1996 In re Foreclosure of Liens, 130 Wn.2d 142, which addresses cotenant notice.)

Why it matters

It is the controlling Washington rule that defective foreclosure-notice content — especially an inadequate property description — can render a tax-foreclosure judgment and deed void ab initio, the central title-risk doctrine for Washington tax-deed purchasers.

Applies in →

washington (binding state authority). Concept cross-links: due-process-notice, quiet-title-after-tax-sale.

Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.

Graph View

Backlinks