FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON IN CLERK’S OFFICE MARCH 31, 2022 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON MARCH 31, 2022 ERIN L. LENNON SUPREME COURT CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of ) ) That Portion of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, ) No. 99598-2 Comstock Park Second Addition, ) According to Plat Recorded in Volume 2 En Banc of Plats, Page 84, Situate in the City And ) County of Spokane, Washington, Lying ) Easterly of the Following Described Line: ) Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Said ) Filed Lot 1; Thence N89°59'27"E, Along the ) North Line of Said Lot 1, 11.00 Feet; March 31, 2022 _______________ ) Thence S09°39' 47'W, Generally Along a 6.0° Foot Board Fence, to the South Line ) of Said Lot 2 and the Point of Terminus; ) Except a Portion Thereof Described as ) Follows: Beginning at the Southeast Corner ) of Said Lot 2; Thence Southwesterly Along ) the Southerly Line of Said Lot 2 to the ) Southwest Corner Thereof; Thence ) Northerly Along the Westerly Line of Said Lot 2 A Distance of 38.0 Feet; Thence ) Northeasterly to the Point of Beginning; ) ) ALEX MAY, owner of said property, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) SPOKANE COUNTY, necessary party; ) and VICKY DALTON, SPOKANE ) COUNTY AUDITOR, in her official ) capacity, necessary party, ) ) Respondents. ) In re That Portion of Lots 1 & 2, No. 99598-2 WHITENER, J.—This case involves the delicate balance required in addressing the elimination of morally repugnant covenants and the preservation of the documented history of disenfranchisement of a people. RCW 49.60.227 permits a court to strike a racially restrictive, legally unenforceable covenant from the public records and eliminate the covenant from the title. This case concerns what, under the statute, striking from the public records and eliminating from the title means and whether a court order declaring the covenant struck and void is all that is required or allowed. Alex May sought a declaratory action under former RCW 49.60.227 (2006) to have a racially restrictive covenant voided and physically removed from the title to his property and from the public records. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the statute at issue does not allow the physical removal of the covenant from the title but, instead, allows only for an order voiding the covenant to be filed with the title. In the interim, the legislature amended RCW 49.60.227, clarifying the procedure under which these covenants are struck and eliminated.1 See LAWS OF 2021, ch. 256. We hold that the interim amendments in Laws of 2021, chapter 256, section 4 apply, and therefore we need not address the statute under which May initially 1 The amendments to RCW 49.60.227 are in effect. However, to avoid confusion, we refer to the iteration of the statute that May brought his case under as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals