Division II: Recision for Improper Subdivision Not Available After Subdivision Made Proper
So Flores bought some property. He then found out that it had been improperly subdivided. Now, there’s a statute that says you have a right to recision of the transaction if that’s the case - RCW 58.17.210. Flores didn’t seek recision. Hoggatt then brought the property into compliance.
THEN Flores sought recision. But see, now the statute doesn’t apply.
Flores contends that he is entitled to rescission under RCW 58.17.210 because a statutory violation " triggers" the right to exercise rescission, and nothing in the statute precludes a purchaser' s exercise of that right after the fact. We hold that Flores' s argument fails because the Hoggatts brought the property into compliance before Flores unequivocally sought rescission. Accordingly, Flores was not entitled to rescission as a matter of law because the statute' s plain language established that rescission is only available to a purchaser as a remedy for noncompliance.
Which, if you think about it, makes sense. The remedy is there to fix something, to right a wrong. If there’s no wrong to right, there’s no point in the remedy anymore.