Paglia v. Breskovich (1974)

Decided: May 1, 1974 · Dockets: 726-2; 766-2 · Rehearing denied: June 10, 1974 · Review denied: July 30, 1974.

Primary holding

An adversary’s lawyer, holding another creditor’s judgment for collection, purchased the debtor’s pending vessel-construction claim at execution and sought to control both sides of that litigation. The court held that the trial court had inherent supervisory power over its process to set aside the sheriff’s bill of sale when reasonable justice to all parties could be satisfied. Failure to enjoin the sale beforehand did not eliminate that power. It reversed the orders and remanded for exercise of that authority; it did not itself announce a general deadline or invalidate every execution purchase of a claim. Complete majority, concurrence and disposition, unofficial reproduction.

Later treatment and currentness

MP Medical v. Wegman (2009) expressly accepted the supervisory-power exception but rejected Paglia’s suggestion that the Supreme Court’s broad rule allowing execution on nonexempt claims had been discarded. The full later opinion was retrieved separately; that limitation matters, not just a positive citation count. mp-medical-v-wegman-wa-m12-2009.

The official unpublished Piatek, No. 71065-6-I (June 23, 2014), discusses both decisions and affirms denial of relief on the inadequate equitable showing made there. It does not convert the exception into an absolute execution ban. Full official Piatek opinion.

Current RCW 6.17.090 remains the broad nonexempt-property execution provision. Comprehensive subsequent treatment is unfinished; good_law_status remains needs_verification. The full primary Paglia text was read through the ordinary web reader; a later direct download returned 429 and was not retried or bypassed. Current execution chapter.

Applies in →

washington · businesses-and-going-concerns

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and subsequent treatment before relying on this decision.