[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 27, Issue 26

Sat Dec 31 11:37:14 PST 2016

Craig,
       Take a look at 58.17.210. The buyer has a cause of action against the seller  and can get attorney's fees. If you represent the seller, then you might consider getting a subdivision approval before the buyer goes to an attorney. If you represent the buyer, you could file suit, or seek to get some after the fact approval and the demand the seller pay all costs.

Steve

Stephen Whitehouse
Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP
P.O. Box 1273
601 W. Railroad Ave.
Shelton, Wa. 98584
swhite8893 at aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2016 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 27, Issue 26

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. Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes v.
      Prudhorn (Marc Holmes)
   2. Re: Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes
      v.	Prudhorn (Roger Hawkes)
   3. Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates (Mark Vohr)
   4. Re: Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates
      (Paul Neumiller)
   5. HOA notice of liens - legal description (Josh Grant)
   6. Re: Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates (Doug Schafer)
   7. Re: Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates (Mark Vohr)
   8. Re: HOA notice of liens - legal description (Richard Holland)
   9. illegal subdivision (Craig Gourley)
  10. Re: HOA notice of liens - legal description (Jennifer Johnson)
  11. Re: illegal subdivision (Eric Nelsen)
  12. Re: illegal subdivision (Craig Gourley)
  13. Re: HOA notice of liens - legal description (John McCrady)
  14. Re: illegal subdivision (John McCrady)
  15. Re: illegal subdivision (Paul Neumiller)
  16. Re: illegal subdivision (scott scottgthomaslaw.com)
  17. Re: illegal subdivision (Jay Goldstein)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:07:25 -0800
From: "Marc Holmes" <marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson
	Homes v.	Prudhorn
Message-ID: <006801d26217$8e5e24b0$ab1a6e10$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'd like some input on a lease question in light of the recent  R. Thoreson
Homes v. Prudhorn case.

Client is about to sell a house in Seattle with a rental ADU.  There's a
written lease of the ADU for 1 year and 4 days (presumably the 4 days were
simply so the tenants could move in right away and the lease would still run
through the last day of the final month).  The lease explicitly states that
it terminates at the end of the lease term and would not convert to month to
month.  During the final month of the lease the parties exchanged emails
whereby the tenants solicited and the landlord offered to renew on "all the
same terms" except for a reduction to the parking arrangement.  Tenants
replied back that they'd love to stay and "everything you described below
sounds fine to us."  The tenants continue paying rent on time and all is
well.  

The landlord believes this created a new 1 year renewal period but I'm
concerned that it's actually a 1 year, 4 day lease since it was for a fixed
term.  If so, does the statute of frauds come into play since the "renewal"
was only via email and not notarized and render the lease something else.
God forbid it somehow morphs into month to month because the R. Thoreson
case then creates a real problem for the prospective buyer who plans to boot
the tenants at the end of the current term and re-develop the property.

Marc Holmes

Holmes Law Group PLLC

808 5th Ave N

Seattle WA 98109

 <http://holmeslawgroup.com/> HolmesLawGroup.com

 <mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com> marc at holmeslawgroup.com

Ofc: 206-357-4224

Cell: 206-849-0853

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/99b56659/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 22:07:49 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R.
	Thoreson Homes v.	Prudhorn
Message-ID:
	<693DA7DDC963424895D6BBD758595A2169DA014A at HLFSERVER1.law-hawks.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Along this same thread: if owner transfers or intends to transfer to an entity owned by the owner does that trigger the allowed ouster based on  intent to sell?  Most folks developing property should do it within a new entity.  Would it make a difference if the new entity was to be owned with someone else?

Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19909 Ballinger Way NE
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 voice
206 367 4005  fax

From: Marc Holmes [mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 1:07 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: [WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes v. Prudhorn

I'd like some input on a lease question in light of the recent  R. Thoreson Homes v. Prudhorn case.

Client is about to sell a house in Seattle with a rental ADU.  There's a written lease of the ADU for 1 year and 4 days (presumably the 4 days were simply so the tenants could move in right away and the lease would still run through the last day of the final month).  The lease explicitly states that it terminates at the end of the lease term and would not convert to month to month.  During the final month of the lease the parties exchanged emails whereby the tenants solicited and the landlord offered to renew on "all the same terms" except for a reduction to the parking arrangement.  Tenants replied back that they'd love to stay and "everything you described below sounds fine to us."  The tenants continue paying rent on time and all is well.

The landlord believes this created a new 1 year renewal period but I'm concerned that it's actually a 1 year, 4 day lease since it was for a fixed term.  If so, does the statute of frauds come into play since the "renewal" was only via email and not notarized and render the lease something else.  God forbid it somehow morphs into month to month because the R. Thoreson case then creates a real problem for the prospective buyer who plans to boot the tenants at the end of the current term and re-develop the property.

Marc Holmes
Holmes Law Group PLLC
808 5th Ave N
Seattle WA 98109
HolmesLawGroup.com<http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
marc at holmeslawgroup.com<mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
Ofc: 206-357-4224
Cell: 206-849-0853

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/c8cead12/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 22:38:47 +0000
From: Mark Vohr <mcv at ohanafc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates
Message-ID:
	<5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E184C2F71 at OHANA100.ofcdomain.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

We are trying to record deeds transferring property from one trust to another, and to a successor trustee as the grantors are deceased.  The recorder's office is insisting on seeing death certificates for the grantors.

Is this a common request?  Does the recorder have the authority to require this added documentation?

Signed, Frustrated..... aka

Mark

Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services

Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710  Seattle, WA  98133
T:  (206) 782-1189 F:  (206) 782-1434
mcv at ohanafc.com<mailto:mcv at ohanafc.com>      www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/>

CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

This communication may contain information that is confidential.  It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient.  If you have received this communication in error.  Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.

This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient.  The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender.  If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/166bdfcb/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:01:12 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates
Message-ID:
	<CY4PR04MB07608AF72E6760993F49B9B0D26B0 at CY4PR04MB0760.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Island  County is requesting the same.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D261E4.622FE730]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Mark Vohr
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 2:39 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates

We are trying to record deeds transferring property from one trust to another, and to a successor trustee as the grantors are deceased.  The recorder's office is insisting on seeing death certificates for the grantors.

Is this a common request?  Does the recorder have the authority to require this added documentation?

Signed, Frustrated..... aka

Mark

Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services

Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710  Seattle, WA  98133
T:  (206) 782-1189 F:  (206) 782-1434
mcv at ohanafc.com<mailto:mcv at ohanafc.com>      www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/>

CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

This communication may contain information that is confidential.  It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient.  If you have received this communication in error.  Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.

This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient.  The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender.  If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/fd67fe64/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14511 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/fd67fe64/image001-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:01:58 -0800
From: "Josh Grant" <jgrant at accima.com>
To: "wsbar" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description
Message-ID: <0D6EEEA527D440FEBDB64705AE8506D0 at JoshPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

    I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments.  The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?.  Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #?  An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?.  Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist. 

But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.

Other opinions?

Josh

Joshua F. Grant, PS
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 619
Wilbur, WA 99185
tel 509 647 5578
fax 509 647 2734
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/05430bc0/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:23:43 -0800
From: Doug Schafer <schafer at pobox.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates
Message-ID: <5049b5fd-3afc-ae18-500a-300c7e7ca5f0 at pobox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/97b17545/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:40:06 +0000
From: Mark Vohr <mcv at ohanafc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates
Message-ID:
	<5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E184C321C at OHANA100.ofcdomain.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks all for the feedback.

Mark

Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services

Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710  Seattle, WA  98133
T:  (206) 782-1189 F:  (206) 782-1434
mcv at ohanafc.com<mailto:mcv at ohanafc.com>      www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 3:24 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates

Presuming that the property is being transferred pursuant to the terms of the trust, the county treasurer won't approve the claim of exemption from the Real Estate Excise Tax (so the Recorder/Auditor won't record the deed) unless the required documents are provided.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-61A-202<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__apps.leg.wa.gov_WAC_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D458-2D61A-2D202&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=Viwi5fEbrc_2GhcwLMiI0MNKbLo0eGGuoAjMSy4Nzk4&e=> (WAC 458-61A-202)

(8) Documentation. In order to claim this exemption, the following documentation must be provided: . . .
(b) Trusts. If property is being transferred under the terms of a trust instrument, a certified copy of the death certificate, and a copy of the trust instrument showing the authority of the grantor;

Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.
On 12/29/2016 2:38 PM, Mark Vohr wrote:
We are trying to record deeds transferring property from one trust to another, and to a successor trustee as the grantors are deceased.  The recorder's office is insisting on seeing death certificates for the grantors.

Is this a common request?  Does the recorder have the authority to require this added documentation?

Signed, Frustrated..... aka

Mark

Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services

Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710  Seattle, WA  98133
T:  (206) 782-1189 F:  (206) 782-1434
mcv at ohanafc.com<mailto:mcv at ohanafc.com>      www.ohanafc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ohanafc.com_&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=DTYW6tV7rqqJUbM7wIm7pVKBqH8gLERTOv9BisRClxU&e=>

CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

This communication may contain information that is confidential.  It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient.  If you have received this communication in error.  Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.

This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient.  The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender.  If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.

_______________________________________________

WSBARP mailing list

WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=-vxHqaRYUgN8nTsgbSfpS2J6lnq2HMNqGCsUCZ7x7vU&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/2d519a49/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:51:45 +0000
From: Richard Holland <rich at pnwle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description
Message-ID:
	<BL2PR15MB1076D663A8945B2122D2F72DC56B0 at BL2PR15MB1076.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

There is a case ? at least one that I know of - that for the life of me (on my phone) I can?t recall the name of at the moment - that says that the auditor?s file number is a sufficient legal as the judge did not consider reference to the Etax affidavit or County records an ?off document? such that it was a deficient legal.  Not sure I buy that and I would always include it.  That said, since almost every county now requires at least the ?short legal? in order to index the file, the parcel number and the short legal should be enough.  To my knowledge, Title Companies do not search based on complete legal descriptions.  They are going to use the address and parcel number and the short legal should be confirmation to them that they are looking at the right address.  Interested to hear other views though.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Josh Grant
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 3:02 PM
To: wsbar <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description

    I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments.  The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?.  Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #?  An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?.  Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist.

But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.

Other opinions?

Josh

Joshua F. Grant, PS
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 619
Wilbur, WA 99185
tel 509 647 5578
fax 509 647 2734
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/a8b2971f/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:46:31 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<SN1PR12MB0877B79DCC5A587549BCD106AE6A0 at SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Listmates,  I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision.  By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer.  No BLA, no short plat, just a deed.  My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit.  Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither?  I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter.  Thanks, Craig

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/20161230/aacbe128/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:55:52 -0800
From: Jennifer Johnson <jmhanigan at cni.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description
Message-ID: <E6E1F2F1-F3B8-4FD3-ACE0-893EF51ADB70 at cni.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

If the lien is properly indexed under the property owner?s name and/or the tax parcel number, then the title company should find it.

Jennifer

Jennifer Johnson
Attorney | Title Officer
Wahkiakum Title & Escrow Co.
PO Box 39 - 68 Main Street
Cathlamet, WA 98612
(360) 795-3741
(360) 795-3001 (f)

Serving Wahkiakum County?s Title & Escrow Needs For Over 100 Years

Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

> On Dec 29, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Josh Grant <jgrant at accima.com> wrote:
> 
>     I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments.  The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?.  Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #?  An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?.  Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist.
>  
> But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.
>  
> Other opinions?
>  
> Josh
>  
> Joshua F. Grant, PS
> Attorney at Law
> P. O. Box 619
> Wilbur, WA 99185
> tel 509 647 5578
> fax 509 647 2734
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> 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/20161230/65d68a3f/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:24:30 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<8CF6ADB264BB704BB884B2ED9C1931D401886665F0 at SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?

It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.

Clear as mud--

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

Listmates,  I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision.  By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer.  No BLA, no short plat, just a deed.  My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit.  Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither?  I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter.  Thanks, Craig

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/20161230/604f1d79/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:46:03 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<SN1PR12MB0877D52C80BC8DC7B42F9E15AE6A0 at SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you Eric,  The county assigned it a separate TPN back in '78 when the transfer was made but are denying it lot status.  Lots of BLA activity and revisions of short plats involving this piece of dirt over the years, several of which had the wrong parties signing so the Grantor's had no interest in the land they purported to transfer.  Typical problem made worse by people trying to fix it.  Should be a fun case, just need to figure out who the defendant should be!

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>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?

It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.

Clear as mud--

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

Listmates,  I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision.  By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer.  No BLA, no short plat, just a deed.  My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit.  Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter.  Thanks, Craig

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/20161230/b4b9f285/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:59:25 -0800
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description
Message-ID:
	<A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6234A584C at PSTMAILV.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

There are of course several layers to this question, but my quick reply is:

If the CCR establish a lien upon assessment, then the recording of the lien is not necessary for the lien to attach to the property.  The recording is only to assure that a Title Search will disclose the existence of the already perfected lien.
The title company may pick up the lien based on the included parcel number, as our plant postings should include the filed lien notwithstanding the lack of a legal description.  However, without the legal description we cannot be certain we will pick it up.
Also, notwithstanding the title company posting issues, the legal description is required for the recorded lien to be in the official chain of title to the property.
My bottom line is, once it has been decided to record the lien, it doesn?t make sense to not include the legal description on the lien.

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Jennifer Johnson
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 7:56 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description

If the lien is properly indexed under the property owner?s name and/or the tax parcel number, then the title company should find it.

Jennifer

Jennifer Johnson
Attorney | Title Officer
Wahkiakum Title & Escrow Co.
PO Box 39 - 68 Main Street
Cathlamet, WA 98612
(360) 795-3741
(360) 795-3001 (f)

Serving Wahkiakum County?s Title & Escrow Needs For Over 100 Years

Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

On Dec 29, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Josh Grant <jgrant at accima.com<mailto:jgrant at accima.com>> wrote:

    I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments.  The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?.  Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #?  An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?.  Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist.

But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.

Other opinions?

Josh

Joshua F. Grant, PS
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 619
Wilbur, WA 99185
tel 509 647 5578
fax 509 647 2734
_______________________________________________
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/20161230/630e2b41/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:15:43 -0800
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6234A5854 at PSTMAILV.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I agree with Eric's analysis.
RCW 58.17.030  states that "every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter......"
RCW 58.17.300 states that "any person......who violates any provision of this chapter.....shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and each sale...or transfer....shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense."
I am not aware of any authority holding that a transfer in violation of the subdivision code is void or voidable.  If anyone is aware of such authority I would love to hear about it.

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?

It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.

Clear as mud--

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

Listmates,  I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision.  By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer.  No BLA, no short plat, just a deed.  My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit.  Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter.  Thanks, Craig

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/20161230/64722b4b/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:35:48 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<CY4PR04MB0760B2C3C1A8ABFF316081D6D26A0 at CY4PR04MB0760.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

For the sake of the conversation, CA does allow the initial buyer up to a year after the discovery to void the deed, sale, or contract of sale.  (Don?t know if there is a corresponding WA provision):
CA Gov. Code 66499.32.

(a) Any deed of conveyance, sale or contract to sell real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of the provisions of this division, or of the provisions of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division, is voidable at the sole option of the grantee, buyer or person contracting to purchase, his heirs, personal representative, or trustee in insolvency or bankruptcy within one year after the date of discovery of the violation of the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant to the provisions of this division, but the deed of conveyance, sale or contract to sell is binding upon any successor in interest of the grantee, buyer or person contracting to purchase, other than those above enumerated, and upon the grantor, vendor, or person contracting to sell, or his assignee, heir or devisee.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D26290.D996FF50]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 11:16 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

I agree with Eric?s analysis.
RCW 58.17.030  states that ?every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter???
RCW 58.17.300 states that ?any person??who violates any provision of this chapter?..shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and each sale?or transfer?.shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.?
I am not aware of any authority holding that a transfer in violation of the subdivision code is void or voidable.  If anyone is aware of such authority I would love to hear about it.

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?

It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.

Clear as mud--

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

Listmates,  I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision.  By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer.  No BLA, no short plat, just a deed.  My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can?t get a building permit.  Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter.  Thanks, Craig

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/20161230/7c8273e2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14511 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Paul Neumiller.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 1628 bytes
Desc: Paul Neumiller.vcf
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/PaulNeumiller-0001.vcf>

------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:40:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "scott scottgthomaslaw.com" <scott at scottgthomaslaw.com>
To: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>, WSBA Real Property Listserv
	<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<1767196272.5178.1483126815987 at webmail3.networksolutionsemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/6fcfca00/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:55:24 +0000
From: Jay Goldstein <jay at jaglaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision
Message-ID:
	<MWHPR12MB1727B5AE6204E2E5AA4CFF0BCF6A0 at MWHPR12MB1727.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

This form attached seems to fit this situation

J

Jay A. Goldstein
[Logo Color 946x243 pixels]
1800 Cooper Point RD SW NO. 8  |  Olympia, WA 98502
Telephone 360.352.1970  |  Fax 360.357.0844 |  www.jaglaw.net<http://www.jaglaw.net/>
jay at jaglaw.net<mailto:jay at jaglaw.net>

Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice.
The purpose of this email is to transmit a message or document.
Should you not be the intended recipient of this email message,
please reply advising of the mistake and then delete this message
from your computer. Should you have any questions,
please call the Sender at 360-352-1970.
No trees were killed in sending this message
(however, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced).

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of scott scottgthomaslaw.com
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 11:40 AM
To: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>; WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

?      See The Newport Yacht Basin Association of Condominium Owners v. Supreme Northwest, Inc., 168 Wn.App. 56, 73, 277 P.3d 18
?        (2012).

?
On December 30, 2016 at 11:15 AM John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com<mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>> wrote:

I agree with Eric?s analysis.

RCW 58.17.030  states that ?every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter???

RCW 58.17.300 states that ?any person??who violates any provision of this chapter?..shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and each sale?or transfer?.shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.?

I am not aware of any authority holding that a transfer in violation of the subdivision code is void or voidable.  If anyone is aware of such authority I would love to hear about it.

John McCrady

Counsel

Puget Sound Title Company

5350 Orchard Street West

University Place WA 98466

253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?

It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.

Clear as mud--

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen

SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC

1417 31st Ave South

Seattle WA  98144-3909

phone 206-625-0092

fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision

Listmates,  I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision.  By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer.  No BLA, no short plat, just a deed.  My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can?t get a building permit.  Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter.  Thanks, Craig

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>

_______________________________________________
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/20161230/95ecdb9c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6423 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 25544 bytes
Desc: T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013-0001.pdf>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 27, Issue 26
**************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161231/423ebb8e/attachment.html>