Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to suggest any "disability" on Barbara Pyeatt's part which relates to the invalidity of the contract to repay the notes. The fact that the judgment may remain partially or fully unsatisfied due to the Pyeatts' existing financial difficulties[158 Wn.2d 537], and the inability of the Lenders to enforce the deeds of trust, is not a "disability" within the meaning of the rule of Falconer. SeeFalconer, 184 Wash. at 442, 51 P.2d 618; see also Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wash.App. 246, 253, 835 P.2d 225 (1992). Accordingly, as the Court of Appeals determined, the Lenders' failure to satisfy these elements precluded the trial court from imposing an equitable lien in this case.
Lynch v. Deaconess Med. Ctr., 113 Wn.2d 162, 165, 775 P.2d 681 (1989); Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., Inc., 66 Wn.App. 246, 251-52, 835 P.2d 225 (1992). Courts look to the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a person is a volunteer, including "(1) whether the benefits were conferred at the request of the party benefited, (2) whether the party benefited knew of the payment, but stood back and let the party make the payment, and (3) whether the benefits were necessary to protect the interests of the party who conferred the benefit or the party who benefited thereby."
An equitable lien is a remedy for debt found to be owed in law. See Ellensburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wn.App. 246, 252, 835 P.2d 225 (1992). "An equitable lien is neither a debt nor a right of property, but a remedy for a debt."
The court stated the elements of an equitable lien as follows: The right to an equitable lien arises when a party at the request of another advances him money to be applied and which is applied to the discharge of a legal obligation of that other, but when, owing to the disability of the person to whom the money is advanced, no valid contract is made for its repayment. Falconer, 184 Wash. at 442; see also Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., Inc., 66 Wn. App. 246, 835 P.2d 225 (1992) (applying these elements in rejecting an argument that an equitable lien should be imposed against certain property). The court went on to express limitations to this remedy:
In any event, substantial evidence supports each finding, and the court's findings support its conclusions. See American Nursery Prods., Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards, 115 Wn.2d 217, 222, 797 P.2d 477 (1990); Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wn. App. 246, 250, 835 P.2d 225, review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1011 (1992). The trial court did not err when it ruled that Fisher had caused the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to be issued wrongfully.
Trane Co. v. Randolph Plumbing & Heating, 44 Wash.App. 438, 442, 722 P.2d 1325 (1986). Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wash.App. 246, 251-52, 835 P.2d 225 (1992), rev. denied, 120 Wash.2d 1011, 841 P.2d 47 (1992). The bankruptcy court found that the road was not positioned within the tract at Appellees' request but, rather, was placed by Appellants totally without Appellees' knowledge.
Whether one acts as a volunteer is determined in light of all surrounding circumstances, including (1) whether the benefits were conferred at the request of the party benefitted, (2) whether the party benefitted knew of the payment, but stood back and let the party make the payment, and (3) whether the benefits were necessary to protect the interests of the party who conferred the benefit or the party who benefitted thereby. Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wn. App. 246, 251-52, 835 P.2d 225 (1992). A volunteer may also be "a person who without mistake, coercion, or request has unconditionally conferred a benefit upon another."
It must be kept in mind that an equitable lien is a remedy for debt determined to be owed in law. See Ellensburg, 66 Wash. App at 252 835 P.2d 225 (citing Nelson v. Nelson Neal Lumber Co., 171 Wash. 55, 61, 17 P.2d 626 (1932)). In each equitable lien case brought to our attention, an equitable lien was imposed only upon the property or interest owned by the person incurring the debt.
The right to an equitable lien arises when a party at the request of another advances him money to be applied and which is applied to the discharge of a legal obligation of that other, but when, owing to the disability of the person to whom the money is advanced, no valid contract is made for its repayment. Falconer v. Stevenson, 184 Wn. 438, 442, 51 P.2d 618 (1935) (citation omitted); see also Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wn. App. 246, 252-53, 835 P.2d 225 (1992). A claimant who has a remedy at law does not obtain an equitable interest. Webster v. Rodrick, 64 Wn.2d 814, 817, 394 P.2d 689 (1964).
Sorenson, 158 Wn.2d at 537 (citing Nelson v. Nelson Neal Lumber Co., 171 Wash. 55, 61, 17 P.2d 626 (1932); Ellenburg v. Larson Fruit Co., 66 Wn.App. 246, 252, 835 P.2d 225 (1992)). Indeed, "ʻ[a]n equitable lien is the right to have property subjected in a court of equity to the payment of a claim.