[WSBARP] UD Gurus

Tue Mar 25 10:18:14 PDT 2014

I will pass on the DV comments to the attorney who is representing our
mutual client in the DV action.  I am focusing primarily on the UD aspect
of the client’s matters. 

-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Clark, Catherine
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:18 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: RE: [WSBARP] UD Gurus

Then of course there is the meretricious relationship issue.  If they
commingled or something like it, she may have an independent claim to the
house based on that.

Catherine C. Clark

Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4785

Seattle, WA  98104

Phone:  (206) 838-2528

Fax: (206) 374-3003

Email:  cat at loccc.com

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information
transmission is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or
the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If you
received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
by telephone at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.

From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of swhite8893 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:15 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] UD Gurus

The unlawful detainer statutes do no apply to a tenancy at will. Turner v
White, 20 WashApp 290, 579 P.2d 140(1978)). Therefore you either have to
convert the tenancy to something else, or bring an ejectment action and do
a summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. If there is any
consideration, then it is not a tenancy at will. Najewitz, v. City of
Seattle, 21 Wash.2d 656, 152P.2d 722 (1944). 

Read Davis v. Jones, 15 Wash.2d 572. 131. p.2d 430(1942). I think that
stands for the proposition that if you are a tenancy at will, and exceed
the scope of that permission (i.e. reasonable advance notice has been
given that you are terminating the tenancy at will), you become a tenancy
by sufferance subject to the unlawful detainer statutes. Look also at
Western Union v Hansen Rowland, 166 F.2d 258 (1948), and Sarvis v Land
Resources, 62 WashApp 888, 815 P.2d 840 (1991).

     I do not think this issue is entirely clear, but I think you can make
a good faith argument from the foregoing.

Steve Whitehouse

Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP

Attorneys at Law

P.O. Box 1273

601 W. Railroad Ave.

Shelton, Wa. 98584

360-426-5885

swhite8893 at aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 2:32 pm
Subject: [WSBARP] UD Gurus

Got bounced of court today with a one week continuance by a Judge Pro Tem
who is, uhh, unfamiliar with LL/T law.  I need to now “brief” the court in
a week on why the following procedure works:

Girlfriend/boyfriend share house owed by boyfriend.  Big fight, sheriff
comes and arrests boyfriend and the court issues a temporary restraining
order against boyfriend (both blame and accuse the other).  Relationship
is now over though the hearing on the restraining order has not occurred.
I am representing the boyfriend who is trying to get his house back from
girlfriend who is living in the house rent free.

We served a Tenancy at Will Termination Notice saying that if she was not
out by a certain date, that $$$ of rent would be due and payable and that
the relationship would be governed by RCW Chapters 59.12 and 59.18.  She
didn’t pay the rent or vacate so we then served the standard combined 3
day and 20 day eviction notice and brought the action under RCW
59.12.030(3) for non-payment of rent.

I had to walk the judge through the legal analysis of termination of a
tenancy-at-will relationship.  She wasn’t buying the legal jump between
terminating the tenancy-at-will and bringing the UD action under RCW
59.12.  Judge asked for an RCW or case law that says this procedure is
appropriate instead of having to bring an ejectment action.  Judge Pro Tem
was unmoved by my observations that I had previously used this procedure
at least three times in the past year in that same courtroom and that many
attorneys across the State of Washington have been using this procedure.

Any help out there?  Anyone actually had to defend this procedure in the
past????

Sorry for the long post.  (I feel like I am trying to prove a negative
argument.)

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 14506 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20140325/a61a919a/winmail.dat>