[WSBARP] Do you think RCW 4.24.630 Applies to Condos?

[John M. Riley III]

As well, the Etzel case seems to say it has to be an invasion by a person, not an invasion by water.  I can't say if the court would interpret Etzel as the definitive answer to that question.  Please let me know how your case turns out if you get a court ruling, as  I have contemplated this issue in a spreading fire scenario.

John Riley



John M. Riley, III
Principal | Witherspoon * Kelley
jmr at witherspoonkelley.com<mailto:jmr at witherspoonkelley.com> | Attorney Profile<http://www.witherspoonkelley.com/john-riley-1> | vCard<http://www.witherspoonkelley.com/s/jmr.vcf>

[cid:wkc1dd54]<http://www.witherspoonkelley.com>        422 W. Riverside Ave, Ste 1100
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 624-5265 (office)
(509) 458-2728 (fax)
witherspoonkelley.com



Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.



From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Clark, Catherine
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:22 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Do you think RCW 4.24.630 Applies to Condos?

Listmates:

I represent a condominium unit owner who has suffered multiple floods in his unit as a result of a failing plumbing system - a common area.  His kitchen and living room have been un-useable since September 2014.  The HOA has not responded to our letters so we are in the process of filing suit.

I'm wondering if RCW 4.24.630 applies to condos?  I acknowledge that the statute says land, and it does apply to timber claims, but it is also a general statute on waste.  I am, again, thinking outside the box here.

Apart from the uphill battle I will likely face on equating a condo with "land" (I'm happy to take that argument up), do you see any other reason why this statute would not apply in this circumstance?

Trespass is also available it seems to me.

All thoughts appreciated.

Thanks.

Catherine C. Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4105
Seattle, WA  98104
Phone:  (206) 838-2528
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email:  cat at loccc.com<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150227/acf43e51/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wkc1dd54
Type: image/png
Size: 8107 bytes
Desc: wkc1dd54
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150227/acf43e51/wkc1dd54.png>