[WSBARP] WSBARP Eviction in Kent (Theresa Nguyen)
Theresa Nguyen
theresa at tnguyenlaw.com
Fri Apr 22 23:05:12 PDT 2016
I would love to help on the eviction issue.
Kindest Regards,
Theresa Nguyen, J.D., LL.M.
Law Office of Theresa Nguyen, PLLC
707 S Grady Way, Suite 600 | Renton, WA 98057
Ph. 425.998.7295 | Fax 425.420.2695
Email: theresa at tnguyenlaw.com | Mobile: 206.499.9515
Website: www.tnguyenlaw.com
> On Apr 22, 2016, 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. referral eviction - Kent (Craig Gourley)
> 2. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Rob Wilson-Hoss)
> 3. eviction in Kent (Craig Gourley)
> 4. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Paul Neumiller)
> 5. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Darrin Class)
> 6. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Doug Schafer)
> 7. Sample Access Easement (Bickel, Dwight)
> 8. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Paul Neumiller)
> 9. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Paul Neumiller)
> 10. Re: HOAs and Atty Fees (Doug Schafer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:01:37 +0000
> From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
> To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] referral eviction - Kent
> Message-ID:
> <SN1PR12MB08775AA3855DF7EC8621DDF7AE6E0 at SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Listmates, we have just completed a judicial foreclosure in Kent and would like to refer the client to a local attorney to handle the residential eviction. Any takers??
>
> Gourley Law Group
> Snohomish Escrow
> The Exchange Connection
>
> 1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
> Snohomish, WA 98291
>
> 360.568.5065
> 360.568.8092 fax
> Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/690df22c/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:11:01 -0700
> From: "Rob Wilson-Hoss" <rob at hctc.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID: <066101d19c09$ed6eb7f0$c84c27d0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I think this is going to depend on the language of the governing
> documents. In order to get attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in
> contract or statute or equity or some other source. Association governing
> documents can provide that basis, but some of them clearly say, upon
> litigation, and some say, whenever a lawyer is asked to think about this at
> all whether or not the matter proceeds to litigation. Mine say,
>
>
>
> If the Board of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or without
> litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any assessments, as defined
> herein, including the payment of any real property or other taxes associated
> with the subject lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding
> the authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of the
> Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the
> personal or real property of the Association; the correction of any
> violation of Fabulous Acres Country Club covenants and/or rules; or with
> regard to any other dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all
> expenses, including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other expert,
> title report and surveyor fees; lot condition remediation costs; and all
> other costs of litigation, including court and discovery expenses; and any
> and all other amounts reasonably expended in the process of collection,
> dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid by the member or person or
> other entity responsible.
>
>
>
> Of course, whether your recorded running covenants allow that, or
> allow you to amend to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely.
>
>
>
> Arf (always the last word in any discussion that involves
> Chiwawa).
>
>
>
> The second question is, what does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have
> heard of judges saying, no, you can't get fees under the statute because the
> dispute does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this chapter...."
> But the provisions of the chapter include the very expansive language about
> the rights of the association, at .020, including fines and so on; and
> especially as the fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute
> that resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the association had the
> right to do what it did. Which is a dispute about the authority of the
> association under the powers statute, so it really is about a violation of
> the provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of .050 pretty
> much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney fees in most real life
> situations. To me, that is the most telling way of looking at it. A strict
> reading means, a general member is telling the Board, you have violated your
> duties under this chapter," but there is no direct chapter provision that
> says to general members, you all have to follow the rules. So does that mean
> that in practical effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to
> use against associations? What a disaster that would be - general members
> playing gotcha with small rules and getting attorney fee awards, while
> associations can't get attorney fees for exercising their statutory powers.
>
>
>
>
> But this is so far beyond what most Superior Court judges, let
> alone District Court judges, ever see or get training about; and from what
> we have seen lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have been,
> at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to get a different response
> from different judges. There is very little predictability in much of real
> property law, and that is especially true for HOA decisions
>
>
>
> 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 Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> HOA member engages in violation behavior. HOA holds many meetings and
> starts the fining process. Both sides ?lawyer up? and multiple letters are
> exchanged. Member backs down and fixes violation before any court action is
> taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that point. The
> HOA?s CC&Rs state the ?the party prevailing in any enforcement proceeding,
> whether in law or equity, shall have from his opponent any attorney?s fees
> that the court may deem reasonable.? So, for grins and giggles, the HOA
> took the member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees. Court
> said ?not so fast, there was no court action here so the CC&Rs atty fees
> provision and RCW 64.38.050 don?t apply?. (HOA has 30 days to appeal
> decision.) My research is reveals nothing regarding recouping attorney fees
> when there is no court action under these circumstances. All reported cases
> citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out there?
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/04cc31ea/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:13:33 +0000
> From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
> To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] eviction in Kent
> Message-ID:
> <SN1PR12MB0877711E887E062DF85F5406AE6E0 at SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks to all who responded. I have forewarned the contact to the client.
>
> Gourley Law Group
> Snohomish Escrow
> The Exchange Connection
>
> 1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
> Snohomish, WA 98291
>
> 360.568.5065
> 360.568.8092 fax
> Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/5e4ef670/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:03:28 -0700
> From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP7430DA7150974C0C313992D26E0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Arf, indeed! I knew this was a shot in the dark.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Rob. You have confirmed my understanding that this is a muddled
> area. The HOA?s language refers to an: 1) ?enforcement proceeding,? 2)
> ?whether in law or equity?, 3) and awarded by the ?court.? I think this all
> points up to the conclusion that the drafters intended for the prevailing
> party to receive atty fees only in the context of litigation. But you
> never know that the courts will say so that?s why I asked the question.
>
>
>
> BTW, this is a huge development and highly unlikely to ever revised their
> CC&Rs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:11 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I think this is going to depend on the language of the governing
> documents. In order to get attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in
> contract or statute or equity or some other source. Association governing
> documents can provide that basis, but some of them clearly say, upon
> litigation, and some say, whenever a lawyer is asked to think about this at
> all whether or not the matter proceeds to litigation. Mine say,
>
>
>
> If the Board of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or without
> litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any assessments, as defined
> herein, including the payment of any real property or other taxes associated
> with the subject lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding
> the authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of the
> Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the
> personal or real property of the Association; the correction of any
> violation of Fabulous Acres Country Club covenants and/or rules; or with
> regard to any other dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all
> expenses, including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other expert,
> title report and surveyor fees; lot condition remediation costs; and all
> other costs of litigation, including court and discovery expenses; and any
> and all other amounts reasonably expended in the process of collection,
> dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid by the member or person or
> other entity responsible.
>
>
>
> Of course, whether your recorded running covenants allow that, or
> allow you to amend to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely.
>
>
>
> Arf (always the last word in any discussion that involves
> Chiwawa).
>
>
>
> The second question is, what does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have
> heard of judges saying, no, you can't get fees under the statute because the
> dispute does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this chapter...."
> But the provisions of the chapter include the very expansive language about
> the rights of the association, at .020, including fines and so on; and
> especially as the fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute
> that resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the association had the
> right to do what it did. Which is a dispute about the authority of the
> association under the powers statute, so it really is about a violation of
> the provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of .050 pretty
> much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney fees in most real life
> situations. To me, that is the most telling way of looking at it. A strict
> reading means, a general member is telling the Board, you have violated your
> duties under this chapter," but there is no direct chapter provision that
> says to general members, you all have to follow the rules. So does that mean
> that in practical effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to
> use against associations? What a disaster that would be - general members
> playing gotcha with small rules and getting attorney fee awards, while
> associations can't get attorney fees for exercising their statutory powers.
>
>
>
>
> But this is so far beyond what most Superior Court judges, let
> alone District Court judges, ever see or get training about; and from what
> we have seen lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have been,
> at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to get a different response
> from different judges. There is very little predictability in much of real
> property law, and that is especially true for HOA decisions
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> HOA member engages in violation behavior. HOA holds many meetings and
> starts the fining process. Both sides ?lawyer up? and multiple letters are
> exchanged. Member backs down and fixes violation before any court action is
> taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that point. The
> HOA?s CC&Rs state the ?the party prevailing in any enforcement proceeding,
> whether in law or equity, shall have from his opponent any attorney?s fees
> that the court may deem reasonable.? So, for grins and giggles, the HOA
> took the member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees. Court
> said ?not so fast, there was no court action here so the CC&Rs atty fees
> provision and RCW 64.38.050 don?t apply?. (HOA has 30 days to appeal
> decision.) My research is reveals nothing regarding recouping attorney fees
> when there is no court action under these circumstances. All reported cases
> citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out there?
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/3664f99a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 23:24:54 +0000
> From: Darrin Class <Darrin at rdclasslegal.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID:
> <SN1PR20MB0669BE3B8BBF8F8244B03F68AC6E0 at SN1PR20MB0669.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> How about the Individual/Special Assessment sections of the CCR's? Some are fairly broad and could be a vehicle for recovery.
>
> I'm looking at one now that reads "The Board of Directors shall have the power to levy special assessments against an Owner ... to collect amounts due to the Association from an Owner for breach of the Owner's obligations under the Declaration, the Bylaws, or the Rules and Regulations...."
>
> You could also look to the HOA's Rules & Regulations and its fine schedule.
>
>
>
> [cid:image003.png at 01D19BEA.56786B80]
> PO Box 173
> Ridgefield WA 98642
>
> Washington 360-953-4148/Oregon 503-208-5789
> darrin at rdclasslegal.com<mailto:darrin at rdclasslegal.com>
>
> This message and any files transmitted with it contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential, may be privileged, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or taking any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please advise the sender by e-mail reply, and delete it from your system.
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:03 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
> Arf, indeed! I knew this was a shot in the dark.
>
> Thanks, Rob. You have confirmed my understanding that this is a muddled area. The HOA's language refers to an: 1) "enforcement proceeding," 2) "whether in law or equity", 3) and awarded by the "court." I think this all points up to the conclusion that the drafters intended for the prevailing party to receive atty fees only in the context of litigation. But you never know that the courts will say so that's why I asked the question.
>
> BTW, this is a huge development and highly unlikely to ever revised their CC&Rs.
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:11 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
> Paul,
>
> I think this is going to depend on the language of the governing documents. In order to get attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in contract or statute or equity or some other source. Association governing documents can provide that basis, but some of them clearly say, upon litigation, and some say, whenever a lawyer is asked to think about this at all whether or not the matter proceeds to litigation. Mine say,
>
> If the Board of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or without litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any assessments, as defined herein, including the payment of any real property or other taxes associated with the subject lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of the Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the personal or real property of the Association; the correction of any violation of Fabulous Acres Country Club covenants and/or rules; or with regard to any other dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all expenses, including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other expert, title report and surveyor fees; lot condition remediation costs; and all other costs of litigation, including court and discovery expenses; and any and all other amounts reasonably expended in the process of collection, dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid !
> by the member or person or other entity responsible.
>
> Of course, whether your recorded running covenants allow that, or allow you to amend to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely.
>
> Arf (always the last word in any discussion that involves Chiwawa).
>
> The second question is, what does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have heard of judges saying, no, you can't get fees under the statute because the dispute does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this chapter...." But the provisions of the chapter include the very expansive language about the rights of the association, at .020, including fines and so on; and especially as the fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute that resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the association had the right to do what it did. Which is a dispute about the authority of the association under the powers statute, so it really is about a violation of the provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of .050 pretty much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney fees in most real life situations. To me, that is the most telling way of looking at it. A strict reading means, a general member is telling the Board, you have violated your duties under this!
> chapter," but there is no direct chapter provision that says to general members, you all have to follow the rules. So does that mean that in practical effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to use against associations? What a disaster that would be - general members playing gotcha with small rules and getting attorney fee awards, while associations can't get attorney fees for exercising their statutory powers.
>
> But this is so far beyond what most Superior Court judges, let alone District Court judges, ever see or get training about; and from what we have seen lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have been, at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to get a different response from different judges. There is very little predictability in much of real property law, and that is especially true for HOA decisions
>
> Rob
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
> 236 West Birch Street
> Shelton, WA 98584
> 360 426-2999
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com<www.hossandwilsonhoss.com>
> rob at hctc.com<mailto: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> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
> HOA member engages in violation behavior. HOA holds many meetings and starts the fining process. Both sides "lawyer up" and multiple letters are exchanged. Member backs down and fixes violation before any court action is taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that point. The HOA's CC&Rs state the "the party prevailing in any enforcement proceeding, whether in law or equity, shall have from his opponent any attorney's fees that the court may deem reasonable." So, for grins and giggles, the HOA took the member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees. Court said "not so fast, there was no court action here so the CC&Rs atty fees provision and RCW 64.38.050 don't apply". (HOA has 30 days to appeal decision.) My research is reveals nothing regarding recouping attorney fees when there is no court action under these circumstances. All reported cases citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out there?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/44824aa4/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 41176 bytes
> Desc: image003.png
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/44824aa4/image003-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:34:30 -0700
> From: Doug Schafer <schafer at pobox.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID: <57196386.9070900 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/8614b4fd/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 2001_Chapter-156.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 45735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160421/8614b4fd/2001_Chapter-156-0001.pdf>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:52:41 +0000
> From: "Bickel, Dwight" <Dwight.Bickel at fntg.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>,
> "REALPROP at yahoogroups.com" <REALPROP at yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Sample Access Easement
> Message-ID:
> <SN1PR0701MB18246E533C3B6F09385DE17B8B6F0 at SN1PR0701MB1824.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> An attorney customer has asked me to send a "form" for the creation of a residential access easement. Of course, there is no form. If you have a sample that includes basic maintenance terms, please help me to them her. You may send directly by email and I will omit any names or specific property descriptions to forward. Or, post something here for the use of others.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Dwight Bickel
> E-mail: Dwight.Bickel at fntg.com<mailto:Dwight.Bickel at fntg.com>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:35 PM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
> Paul, you wrote that the HOA was considering an appeal of the small claims court (SCC) case, and inquired about relevant cases. I believe that it is not widely known among lawyers that an appeal of a SCC case in not a RALJ appeal -- additional argument and briefing are not allowed in the appeal of a SCC case (unlike a RALJ appeal). The superior court judge or commissioner simply listens, in chambers (or wherever), to an audio recording of the SCC hearing, reviews the written record, and makes a ruling. So even if there are relevant cases that were not presented to the SCC judge, the HOA should not on appeal be allowed to brief and argue those relevant cases to the reviewing superior court judge.
>
> The 2013 SCC booklet by the NW Justice Project states:
>
> "If you appeal, the superior court (not small claims court) will consider your appeal. The superior court will only look at the written record and evidence from your original small claims court trial.8 That means, unless the superior court says so, you may not bring new evidence or speak to support your claim again. There will be no jury, no lawyers, or new claims, unless the superior court allows them."
> http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/issues/consumer-debt/small-claims-court
>
> I disagree with that passage's inclusion of "unless the superior court says so" because the 2001 legislation that changed the appellate review from a "trial de novo" to a "de novo review of the record" amended RCW 12.36.055 and struck the previous language that allowed parties equal argument time and the previous language stating that the reviewing judge might grant permission for additional evidence and testimony. The House Bill Report for the 1991 bill summarized testimony in support of it: "Both the superior and district courts feel this bill would be helpful by speeding up reviews of small claims appeals. Superior court judges can conduct them during the down time, and they will not be required to schedule time for witnesses to appear." So appellate review of a SCC ruling is an unscheduled "down time review."
>
> I attach the 1991 legislation to which I have appended its Senate and House bill reports.
>
> Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.
> On 4/21/2016 2:03 PM, Paul Neumiller wrote:
> Arf, indeed! I knew this was a shot in the dark.
>
> Thanks, Rob. You have confirmed my understanding that this is a muddled area. The HOA's language refers to an: 1) "enforcement proceeding," 2) "whether in law or equity", 3) and awarded by the "court." I think this all points up to the conclusion that the drafters intended for the prevailing party to receive atty fees only in the context of litigation. But you never know that the courts will say so that's why I asked the question.
>
> BTW, this is a huge development and highly unlikely to ever revised their CC&Rs.
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:11 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
> Paul,
>
> I think this is going to depend on the language of the governing documents. In order to get attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in contract or statute or equity or some other source. Association governing documents can provide that basis, but some of them clearly say, upon litigation, and some say, whenever a lawyer is asked to think about this at all whether or not the matter proceeds to litigation. Mine say,
>
> If the Board of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or without litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any assessments, as defined herein, including the payment of any real property or other taxes associated with the subject lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of the Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the personal or real property of the Association; the correction of any violation of Fabulous Acres Country Club covenants and/or rules; or with regard to any other dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all expenses, including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other expert, title report and surveyor fees; lot condition remediation costs; and all other costs of litigation, including court and discovery expenses; and any and all other amounts reasonably expended in the process of collection, dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid !
> by the member or person or other entity responsible.
>
> Of course, whether your recorded running covenants allow that, or allow you to amend to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely.
>
> Arf (always the last word in any discussion that involves Chiwawa).
>
> The second question is, what does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have heard of judges saying, no, you can't get fees under the statute because the dispute does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this chapter...." But the provisions of the chapter include the very expansive language about the rights of the association, at .020, including fines and so on; and especially as the fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute that resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the association had the right to do what it did. Which is a dispute about the authority of the association under the powers statute, so it really is about a violation of the provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of .050 pretty much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney fees in most real life situations. To me, that is the most telling way of looking at it. A strict reading means, a general member is telling the Board, you have violated your duties under this!
> chapter," but there is no direct chapter provision that says to general members, you all have to follow the rules. So does that mean that in practical effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to use against associations? What a disaster that would be - general members playing gotcha with small rules and getting attorney fee awards, while associations can't get attorney fees for exercising their statutory powers.
>
> But this is so far beyond what most Superior Court judges, let alone District Court judges, ever see or get training about; and from what we have seen lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have been, at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to get a different response from different judges. There is very little predictability in much of real property law, and that is especially true for HOA decisions
>
> Rob
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
> 236 West Birch Street
> Shelton, WA 98584
> 360 426-2999
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com<www.hossandwilsonhoss.com>
> rob at hctc.com<mailto: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> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
> HOA member engages in violation behavior. HOA holds many meetings and starts the fining process. Both sides "lawyer up" and multiple letters are exchanged. Member backs down and fixes violation before any court action is taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that point. The HOA's CC&Rs state the "the party prevailing in any enforcement proceeding, whether in law or equity, shall have from his opponent any attorney's fees that the court may deem reasonable." So, for grins and giggles, the HOA took the member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees. Court said "not so fast, there was no court action here so the CC&Rs atty fees provision and RCW 64.38.050 don't apply". (HOA has 30 days to appeal decision.) My research is reveals nothing regarding recouping attorney fees when there is no court action under these circumstances. All reported cases citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out there?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> WSBARP mailing list
>
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> ________________________________
> NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160422/8bdc4b5d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:12:50 -0700
> From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP1032145252B5C50CE3016E5D26F0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Darrin, thanks for your ideas. The governing documents are from the 1960s
> and don?t allow for special assessment against individual homeowners.
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Darrin Class
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:25 PM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> How about the Individual/Special Assessment sections of the CCR?s? Some are
> fairly broad and could be a vehicle for recovery.
>
>
>
> I?m looking at one now that reads ?The Board of Directors shall have the
> power to levy special assessments against an Owner ? to collect amounts due
> to the Association from an Owner for breach of the Owner?s obligations under
> the Declaration, the Bylaws, or the Rules and Regulations?.?
>
>
>
> You could also look to the HOA?s Rules & Regulations and its fine schedule.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PO Box 173
>
> Ridgefield WA 98642
>
>
>
> Washington 360-953-4148/Oregon 503-208-5789
>
> <mailto:darrin at rdclasslegal.com> darrin at rdclasslegal.com
>
>
>
> This message and any files transmitted with it contains information intended
> for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential, may
> be privileged, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
> 18 USC 2510-2521, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the intended
> recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
> recipient, you are notified that you have received this document in error
> and that any review, dissemination, copying, or taking any action based on
> the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this message by mistake, please advise the sender by e-mail reply,
> and delete it from your system.
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 2:03 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> Arf, indeed! I knew this was a shot in the dark.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Rob. You have confirmed my understanding that this is a muddled
> area. The HOA?s language refers to an: 1) ?enforcement proceeding,? 2)
> ?whether in law or equity?, 3) and awarded by the ?court.? I think this all
> points up to the conclusion that the drafters intended for the prevailing
> party to receive atty fees only in the context of litigation. But you
> never know that the courts will say so that?s why I asked the question.
>
>
>
> BTW, this is a huge development and highly unlikely to ever revised their
> CC&Rs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:11 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I think this is going to depend on the language of the governing
> documents. In order to get attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in
> contract or statute or equity or some other source. Association governing
> documents can provide that basis, but some of them clearly say, upon
> litigation, and some say, whenever a lawyer is asked to think about this at
> all whether or not the matter proceeds to litigation. Mine say,
>
>
>
> If the Board of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or without
> litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any assessments, as defined
> herein, including the payment of any real property or other taxes associated
> with the subject lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding
> the authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of the
> Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the
> personal or real property of the Association; the correction of any
> violation of Fabulous Acres Country Club covenants and/or rules; or with
> regard to any other dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all
> expenses, including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other expert,
> title report and surveyor fees; lot condition remediation costs; and all
> other costs of litigation, including court and discovery expenses; and any
> and all other amounts reasonably expended in the process of collection,
> dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid by the member or person or
> other entity responsible.
>
>
>
> Of course, whether your recorded running covenants allow that, or
> allow you to amend to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely.
>
>
>
> Arf (always the last word in any discussion that involves
> Chiwawa).
>
>
>
> The second question is, what does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have
> heard of judges saying, no, you can't get fees under the statute because the
> dispute does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this chapter...."
> But the provisions of the chapter include the very expansive language about
> the rights of the association, at .020, including fines and so on; and
> especially as the fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute
> that resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the association had the
> right to do what it did. Which is a dispute about the authority of the
> association under the powers statute, so it really is about a violation of
> the provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of .050 pretty
> much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney fees in most real life
> situations. To me, that is the most telling way of looking at it. A strict
> reading means, a general member is telling the Board, you have violated your
> duties under this chapter," but there is no direct chapter provision that
> says to general members, you all have to follow the rules. So does that mean
> that in practical effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to
> use against associations? What a disaster that would be - general members
> playing gotcha with small rules and getting attorney fee awards, while
> associations can't get attorney fees for exercising their statutory powers.
>
>
>
>
> But this is so far beyond what most Superior Court judges, let
> alone District Court judges, ever see or get training about; and from what
> we have seen lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have been,
> at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to get a different response
> from different judges. There is very little predictability in much of real
> property law, and that is especially true for HOA decisions
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> HOA member engages in violation behavior. HOA holds many meetings and
> starts the fining process. Both sides ?lawyer up? and multiple letters are
> exchanged. Member backs down and fixes violation before any court action is
> taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that point. The
> HOA?s CC&Rs state the ?the party prevailing in any enforcement proceeding,
> whether in law or equity, shall have from his opponent any attorney?s fees
> that the court may deem reasonable.? So, for grins and giggles, the HOA
> took the member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees. Court
> said ?not so fast, there was no court action here so the CC&Rs atty fees
> provision and RCW 64.38.050 don?t apply?. (HOA has 30 days to appeal
> decision.) My research is reveals nothing regarding recouping attorney fees
> when there is no court action under these circumstances. All reported cases
> citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out there?
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160422/6b253886/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 29833 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160422/6b253886/image001-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:18:28 -0700
> From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP3435E4A63114555E69E051D26F0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Doug, this certainly falls under the ?I didn?t know that? category. I
> usually keep my nose out of the SCC arena and took the client?s word for it
> that they had 30 days to appeal the SCC decision.
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:35 PM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> Paul, you wrote that the HOA was considering an appeal of the small claims
> court (SCC) case, and inquired about relevant cases. I believe that it is
> not widely known among lawyers that an appeal of a SCC case in not a RALJ
> appeal -- additional argument and briefing are not allowed in the appeal of
> a SCC case (unlike a RALJ appeal). The superior court judge or commissioner
> simply listens, in chambers (or wherever), to an audio recording of the SCC
> hearing, reviews the written record, and makes a ruling. So even if there
> are relevant cases that were not presented to the SCC judge, the HOA should
> not on appeal be allowed to brief and argue those relevant cases to the
> reviewing superior court judge.
>
> The 2013 SCC booklet by the NW Justice Project states:
>
> "If you appeal, the superior court (not small claims court) will consider
> your appeal. The superior court will only look at the written record and
> evidence from your original small claims court trial.8 That means, unless
> the superior court says so, you may not bring new evidence or speak to
> support your claim again. There will be no jury, no lawyers, or new claims,
> unless the superior court allows them."
> http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/issues/consumer-debt/small-claims-court
>
> I disagree with that passage's inclusion of "unless the superior court says
> so" because the 2001 legislation that changed the appellate review from a
> "trial de novo" to a "de novo review of the record" amended RCW 12.36.055
> and struck the previous language that allowed parties equal argument time
> and the previous language stating that the reviewing judge might grant
> permission for additional evidence and testimony. The House Bill Report for
> the 1991 bill summarized testimony in support of it: "Both the superior and
> district courts feel this bill would be helpful by speeding up reviews of
> small claims appeals. Superior court judges can conduct them during the down
> time, and they will not be required to schedule time for witnesses to
> appear." So appellate review of a SCC ruling is an unscheduled "down time
> review."
>
> I attach the 1991 legislation to which I have appended its Senate and House
> bill reports.
>
> Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.
>
> On 4/21/2016 2:03 PM, Paul Neumiller wrote:
>
> Arf, indeed! I knew this was a shot in the dark.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Rob. You have confirmed my understanding that this is a muddled
> area. The HOA?s language refers to an: 1) ?enforcement proceeding,? 2)
> ?whether in law or equity?, 3) and awarded by the ?court.? I think this all
> points up to the conclusion that the drafters intended for the prevailing
> party to receive atty fees only in the context of litigation. But you
> never know that the courts will say so that?s why I asked the question.
>
>
>
> BTW, this is a huge development and highly unlikely to ever revised their
> CC&Rs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:11 PM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I think this is going to depend on the language of the governing
> documents. In order to get attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in
> contract or statute or equity or some other source. Association governing
> documents can provide that basis, but some of them clearly say, upon
> litigation, and some say, whenever a lawyer is asked to think about this at
> all whether or not the matter proceeds to litigation. Mine say,
>
>
>
> If the Board of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or without
> litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any assessments, as defined
> herein, including the payment of any real property or other taxes associated
> with the subject lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding
> the authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of the
> Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the
> personal or real property of the Association; the correction of any
> violation of Fabulous Acres Country Club covenants and/or rules; or with
> regard to any other dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all
> expenses, including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other expert,
> title report and surveyor fees; lot condition remediation costs; and all
> other costs of litigation, including court and discovery expenses; and any
> and all other amounts reasonably expended in the process of collection,
> dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid by the member or person or
> other entity responsible.
>
>
>
> Of course, whether your recorded running covenants allow that, or
> allow you to amend to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely.
>
>
>
> Arf (always the last word in any discussion that involves
> Chiwawa).
>
>
>
> The second question is, what does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have
> heard of judges saying, no, you can't get fees under the statute because the
> dispute does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this chapter...."
> But the provisions of the chapter include the very expansive language about
> the rights of the association, at .020, including fines and so on; and
> especially as the fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute
> that resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the association had the
> right to do what it did. Which is a dispute about the authority of the
> association under the powers statute, so it really is about a violation of
> the provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of .050 pretty
> much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney fees in most real life
> situations. To me, that is the most telling way of looking at it. A strict
> reading means, a general member is telling the Board, you have violated your
> duties under this chapter," but there is no direct chapter provision that
> says to general members, you all have to follow the rules. So does that mean
> that in practical effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to
> use against associations? What a disaster that would be - general members
> playing gotcha with small rules and getting attorney fee awards, while
> associations can't get attorney fees for exercising their statutory powers.
>
>
>
>
> But this is so far beyond what most Superior Court judges, let
> alone District Court judges, ever see or get training about; and from what
> we have seen lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have been,
> at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to get a different response
> from different judges. There is very little predictability in much of real
> property law, and that is especially true for HOA decisions
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
>
>
>
> HOA member engages in violation behavior. HOA holds many meetings and
> starts the fining process. Both sides ?lawyer up? and multiple letters are
> exchanged. Member backs down and fixes violation before any court action is
> taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that point. The
> HOA?s CC&Rs state the ?the party prevailing in any enforcement proceeding,
> whether in law or equity, shall have from his opponent any attorney?s fees
> that the court may deem reasonable.? So, for grins and giggles, the HOA
> took the member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees. Court
> said ?not so fast, there was no court action here so the CC&Rs atty fees
> provision and RCW 64.38.050 don?t apply?. (HOA has 30 days to appeal
> decision.) My research is reveals nothing regarding recouping attorney fees
> when there is no court action under these circumstances. All reported cases
> citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out there?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160422/9e30016b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:59:24 -0700
> From: Doug Schafer <schafer at pobox.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees
> Message-ID: <571A748C.1020101 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160422/08ef543b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 19, Issue 17
> **************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160422/bbdf6c68/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list