[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3

Sun Sep 6 00:41:13 PDT 2015

I wonder why they took it at all if they are not going to give guideline on
the law, in sorely needed area & topic at that ... maybe they felt that a
few conflicting confusing cases for sake of job security for real estate
lawyers was warranted, as in the formerly-known-as-economic-loss-rule.

Carmen Rowe

*Attorney / Owner*

1121 Harrison Ave. No. 280 - Centralia, WA 98531
Phone: (360) 669-3576
Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com

*Contact us for information on Olympia and Seattle locations.*

*Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential, and we thank
you for your respect in not sharing this email with anyone other than the
person to whom it is addressed;and if you received it by accident, deleting
it and disregarding any information it contains.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com> wrote:

> Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
>         wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Excise Tax Question (Richard Holland)
>    2. Looking For An Estate Final Accounting Spreadsheet (Rob Rowley)
>    3. Filmore Supreme Court opinion (Patrick McDonald)
>    4. Re: Filmore Supreme Court opinion (Rob Wilson-Hoss)
>    5. Re: Filmore Supreme Court opinion (Eric Nelsen)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:19:19 +0000
> From: Richard Holland <rich at pnwle.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Excise Tax Question
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CY1PR0601MB14050E7D31D9FD4BB0CB4D9BC5690 at CY1PR0601MB1405.namprd06.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> While I have a myriad of questions, the simplest form boils down to this:
> "A" is an entity with a contractual relationship with "B" - but does not
> qualify as a nominee for "B" - according to the exemption as I understand
> it.  Both are corporations where A is the 'servicer' for 'client' B.  Is
> there an exemption that would cover a transfer of real estate from A to B
> for which A does not receive payment from B?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150902/1146ee32/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:49:00 -0700
> From: Rob Rowley <rob at rowleylegal.com>
> To: WSBA RPPT <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Looking For An Estate Final Accounting Spreadsheet
> Message-ID: <7f55f0618dd072963b6de2dc4fa9f44c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am hoping somebody would be so kind as to forward to me an Excel
> spreadsheet that I can use to prepare a formal accounting to be filed with
> the court.  It would also be the document which would allocate monies and
> real property between heirs of an estate.
>
>
>
> In other words, not a simple Word document which I've used in the past but
> something with more ?bells and whistles? which allow for numerous debits
> and credits against each of the heirs of the estate where the estate
> consists of cash and dirt.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Please note that effective May 15, 2015, my new address is 7 South Howard
> St., Suite 218, Spokane, WA 99201.  All other contact information remains
> the same.
>
>
>
> *Robert R. Rowley* | Attorney at Law
>
> 7 S. Howard St, Suite 218
>
> Spokane, WA  99201
>
> Telephone: (509) 252-5074
>
> Mobile: (509) 994-1143
>
> Facsimile: (509) 928-3084
>
> Email: rob at rowleylegal.com
>
> Web Site: www.rowleylegal.com
>
>
>
> Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in
> Washington and Idaho.
>
>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rob-rowley/11/172/b20>
> <https://twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>
> <http://www.yelp.com/biz/robert-r-rowley-spokane>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected
> by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable
> protections.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the
> message.  Thank you for your assistance.
>
> DISCLAIMER: You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means
> are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not
> reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be
> applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very
> well reach a different conclusion.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 20360 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image001-0001.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.gif
> Type: image/gif
> Size: 1317 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image003-0001.gif
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image004.gif
> Type: image/gif
> Size: 1295 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image004-0001.gif
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image005.gif
> Type: image/gif
> Size: 1351 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image005-0001.gif
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image008.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 2557 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image008-0001.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image009.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 939 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image009-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:48:55 -0700
> From: Patrick McDonald <pmcdonald at podymcdonaldlaw.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion
> Message-ID: <0D9274D4-6B41-4AB3-A765-6EEFAE2F159B at podymcdonaldlaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court?s decision in
> Filmore came out today. I?ve attached it here. The court affirmed the lower
> courts by ruling that 90% of votes in the Association (as opposed to 67%)
> were required to adopt an amendment to the condominium declaration capping
> the number of rentals.
>
> Unfortunately (in my opinion at least), the court?s decision turned on the
> specific language in the condominium declaration before it. The court
> expressly declined to apply and interpret the amendment provisions of the
> Washington Condominium Act (RCW 64.34.264), which may have provided a
> bright-line, blanket rule that all New Act condominiums could have relied
> on. Instead, the decision leaves some gray area for many New Act
> condominiums depending on the specific wording in their declarations. And
> the opinion could have effects on other types of amendments beyond leasing
> restrictions.
>
> Patrick McDonald
> ________________________
> Pody & McDonald, PLLC
> 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410
> Seattle, WA 98101-3106
> T: 206-467-1559
> F: 206-467-4489
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/attachment-0002.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Filmore.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 236109 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/Filmore-0001.pdf
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/attachment-0003.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:29:27 -0700
> From: "Rob Wilson-Hoss" <rob at hctc.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion
> Message-ID: <06e201d0e676$774f00a0$65ed01e0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I find it very difficult to reconcile today's decision with Wilkinson v.
> Chiwawa. Filmore says that whether or not leasing is permitted in a unit is
> a change in use from residential uses permitted; Chiwawa said that VRBOs
> (short term rentals) are not commercial uses but considered the same as
> single-family residential uses. I know there is much language in both that
> could be used to argue one way or another, and each is premised on the
> particular governing documents, but really? In Filmore, to conclude that
> leasing provisions of the covenants are in the section about uses means
> that
> the inquiry is over? I have already posted my incredulity at the majority
> decision in Chiwawa, and I was far kinder to the majority than the dissents
> were in that case.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
> 236 West Birch Street
> Shelton, WA 98584
> 360 426-2999
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
> rob at hctc.com
>
>
>
> This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may
> contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are hereby
> notified
> that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us by
> reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed above)
> and immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to
> collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.  To
> the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. ?
> 1692)
> applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the
> condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to
> it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have
> the right to seek advice of legal counsel.
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Patrick McDonald
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:49 AM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
> Subject: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion
>
>
>
> For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court?s decision in
> Filmore came out today. I?ve attached it here. The court affirmed the lower
> courts by ruling that 90% of votes in the Association (as opposed to 67%)
> were required to adopt an amendment to the condominium declaration capping
> the number of rentals.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately (in my opinion at least), the court?s decision turned on the
> specific language in the condominium declaration before it. The court
> expressly declined to apply and interpret the amendment provisions of the
> Washington Condominium Act (RCW 64.34.264), which may have provided a
> bright-line, blanket rule that all New Act condominiums could have relied
> on. Instead, the decision leaves some gray area for many New Act
> condominiums depending on the specific wording in their declarations. And
> the opinion could have effects on other types of amendments beyond leasing
> restrictions.
>
>
>
> Patrick McDonald
>
> ________________________
> Pody & McDonald, PLLC
> 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410
> Seattle, WA 98101-3106
> T: 206-467-1559
> F: 206-467-4489
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b682610a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:38:15 +0000
> From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion
> Message-ID:
>
> <8CF6ADB264BB704BB884B2ED9C1931D40187EBE19B at SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> A magnificent punt by a unanimous Supreme Court--avoiding ruling on any
> issue of law at all, and effectively confining the case to its facts. Do
> you have any idea why they so carefully avoided making a binding ruling?
>
> And I wonder--did the CC&Rs have one of those miscellaneous provisions
> that says headings and titles are for convenience only and aren't to be
> used for interpretation of the clauses themselves? Justice Gonzalez's
> opinion hinges on the outline structure of the CC&Rs.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
> 1320 University St
> Seattle WA  98101-2837
> phone 206-625-0092
> fax 206-625-9040
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Patrick McDonald
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:49 AM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
> Subject: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion
>
> For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court's decision in
> Filmore came out today. I've attached it here. The court affirmed the lower
> courts by ruling that 90% of votes in the Association (as opposed to 67%)
> were required to adopt an amendment to the condominium declaration capping
> the number of rentals.
>
> Unfortunately (in my opinion at least), the court's decision turned on the
> specific language in the condominium declaration before it. The court
> expressly declined to apply and interpret the amendment provisions of the
> Washington Condominium Act (RCW 64.34.264), which may have provided a
> bright-line, blanket rule that all New Act condominiums could have relied
> on. Instead, the decision leaves some gray area for many New Act
> condominiums depending on the specific wording in their declarations. And
> the opinion could have effects on other types of amendments beyond leasing
> restrictions.
>
> Patrick McDonald
> ________________________
> Pody & McDonald, PLLC
> 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410
> Seattle, WA 98101-3106
> T: 206-467-1559
> F: 206-467-4489
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/fde98677/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150906/a8633779/attachment.html>