[WSBARP] real estate contracts?

Wed Jun 22 16:50:41 PDT 2016

I concur.  I used to live and work in Twisp and that's about all we could
use out there in the boonies.  Easy to forfeit out a delinquent purchaser
on a contract.  Harder to do with a DOT and Note.

James R. Doran
Attorney at Law
100 E. Pine Street -  Suite 205
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360)393-9506
jim at doranlegal.com
www.doranlegal.com

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:29 PM, John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com> wrote:

> I can attest that REC are quite rare in Pierce County.  They are used
> mainly, though not exclusively, for sales of vacant land.
>
> We find REC being used mainly by developers who buy up large tracts of
> land and subdivide them into 5 to 20 acre lots.
>
> As an aside, I also have always recommended REC for sellers, and deed/deed
> of trust for buyers.
>
> In today’s regulatory world, if I were selling a house and carrying the
> paper, I certainly would opt for the REC.
>
>
>
> 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 *Marc Holmes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:11 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contracts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for chiming in Dwight.  Washington Practice Guide mentions an
> east/west divide in the use of real estate contracts with them being used
> much more frequently east of the Cascades than west.  A quick search of the
> King County Recorder’s website for document type “real estate contract”
> pulls fewer than 20 distinct results for 2016 and less than 50 in all of
> 2015.  And some percentage of these were actually fulfillment deeds rather
> than new contracts.  I do not know how thorough this search method is but
> it certainly suggests that real estate contracts are extremely rare in King
> County.
>
>
>
> Does that seem correct to you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marc Holmes
>
> Holmes Law Group PLLC
>
> 808 5th Ave N
>
> Seattle WA 98109
>
> HolmesLawGroup.com <http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
>
> marc at holmeslawgroup.com
>
> Ofc: 206-357-4224
>
> Cell: 206-849-0853
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Bickel, Dwight
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:15 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contracts?
>
>
>
> The late and wise John Gose had many reasons to be fond of the Deed of
> Trust method of foreclosure that he helped to create in Washington. If he
> had been on the Supreme Court he may have changed the course of the recent
> judicial path. I think he would have put more emphasis on the certainty
> element that the court always mentions. But I doubt he would have gone out
> of his way to protect absentee mortgage owners of securitized mortgages.
> Setting that speculation aside…
>
>
>
> I will speak only for myself and my underwriting judgment for title
> insurance issued following foreclosures. I will trust all readers not to
> rely upon this message as a basis to expect title insurance from any title
> company I might be employed by at that time.
>
>
>
> My answer to the relative insurability question Marc Holmes asked is, in
> my opinion, real estate contract forfeitures are less likely to be set
> aside against the seller than deed of trust non-judicial sales are likely
> to be set aside against the lender. All other risk factors equal, I am less
> willing to assume risk to insure the lender after a recent Trustee sale.
> However, at the time of a resale, I do not perceive a difference in the
> risk that the forfeiture or foreclosure would be set aside against a bona
> fide purchaser.
>
>
>
> Recent cases seem to be settling down, so at present I feel comfortable
> that I am able to recognize the higher risk profiles that are more likely
> to set aside a non-judicial foreclosure sale. So, if the procedures look
> correct on the record, the Trustee is known to me to be dedicated to
> quality, and if the borrower does not stop the sale, then I conclude the
> sale is not likely to be set aside against a bona fide purchaser that
> acquires at the foreclosure sale, or at resale from the lender that
> acquires at the foreclosure sale.
>
>
>
> Washington real estate contract forfeitures have not been discussed in
> appellate decisions anything like the recent volume of cases challenging
> Trustee sales. I do believe there are fewer types of challenges against a
> forfeiture. There are a lot of special foreclosure steps now required for
> Trustee sales that do not apply to forfeitures. Probably the lack of
> appellate cases is just a reflection of the volume of foreclosures versus
> forfeitures. Maybe it also reflects the volume of lawyers who are eager to
> challenge non-judicial sales. The bottom line is the same: the forfeiture
> is not likely to be challenged. Therefore, again if the procedures look
> correct on the record, then the forfeiture is not likely to be set aside
> against a bona fide resale purchaser from the seller after forfeiture.
>
>
>
> Now I must hope my predictions of the lack of future litigation are way
> more accurate than my predictions of past litigation.
>
>
>
> *Dwight Bickel*
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Marc Holmes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:16 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contacts?
>
>
>
> In my last year of law school I took a real estate class taught by the
> late John Gose and I remember very clearly two pieces of advice.  First,
> never carry a second unless you are ready, willing, and able to pay off the
> first in full.  Second, was always use a deed of trust rather than a real
> estate contract because the latter is too easily challenged by the vendee
> and converted into a judicial foreclosure thereby defeating its primary
> benefit of speed.
>
>
>
> As I recall, he felt that a vendee under REK was much more likely to get
> sympathy from a judge than a trustor under a deed of trust if only because
> judges rarely see them and, thus, would be more receptive to allegations of
> vendor wrongdoing.
>
>
>
> I’m curious if any title companies are less willing to insure title after
> a REK forfeiture than a non-judicial foreclosure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marc Holmes
>
> Holmes Law Group PLLC
>
> 808 5th Ave N
>
> Seattle WA 98109
>
> HolmesLawGroup.com <http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
>
> marc at holmeslawgroup.com
>
> Ofc: 206-357-4224
>
> Cell: 206-849-0853
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Josh Grant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:14 AM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contacts?
>
>
>
> I agree with Jeanne.  RE contact is a preferred way for a seller to sell
> real property.  Very simple to forfeit.
>
> One suggestion.  Because there is a Ct of Appeals case which says that if
> you put buyer must pay “reasonable attorney fees” that the buyer has the
> right to have that determined in court. The beauty of a real estate
> contract is that forfeiture is non-judicial.   AS a result I put in the
> contract a straight dollar amount ( for example $1,000) as amount buyer
> must pay for attorney fees in the event a notice of forfeiture is filed.
> They either pay it or lose forfeit.
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> Joshua F. Grant, PS
> Attorney at Law
> P. O. Box 619
> Wilbur, WA 99185
> tel 509 647 5578
> fax 509 647 2734
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeanne Dawes <jjdawes at goregrewe.com>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:00 AM
>
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contacts?
>
>
>
> I prefer a real estate contract over note & deed of trust when I represent
> the Seller.  Forfeiture is quicker, and less expensive than foreclosure.
> If I represent the buyer, I prefer Note & Deed of Trust.
>
>
>
> *Jeanne*
>
>
>
> *Jeanne J.* *Dawes*
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Gore & Grewe, P.S.
>
> 103 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite A
>
> Spokane, WA 99207-2317
>
> Voice:  509-326-7500
>
> Fax:      509-326-7503
>
> jjdawes at goregrewe.com
>
> INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION IS PRIVILEGED AND
> CONFIDENTIAL.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Roger Hawkes
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 7:36 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contacts?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Roy.  I assume the purchaser did not defend?
>
>
>
> *From:* Roy D. Pyatt [mailto:roy.pyatt at landerholm.com
> <roy.pyatt at landerholm.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:03 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] real estate contacts?
>
>
>
> Roger,
>
>
>
> I prefer using a note and deed of trust in seller finance transactions
> like everyone else. But I have performed a couple forfeitures on real
> estate contracts in the last year or two and both went through nicely. It’s
> about a four month process to complete. Both forfeitures were for
> nonpayment.
>
>
>
> Roy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roy D. Pyatt | Attorney at Law
> <http://www.landerholm.com>
> 805 Broadway Street, Suite 1000
> P.O. Box 1086
> Vancouver, WA  98666-1086
> T:  360-696-3312 | T:  503-283-3393 | F:  360-816-2541
> www.landerholm.com <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/lNV1B6tpl8sm>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *Roger Hawkes
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:36 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] real estate contacts?
>
>
>
> I just had a client who wants to sell some land on a real estate
> contract.  That is a rarity in my practice.  What are your recent
> experiences with enforcing such or retaking the property upon failure of
> payment? Or waste?
>
>
>
> Roger Hawkes
>
> ----------------------------
> This e-mail message (including attachments) is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s).  It contains confidential, proprietary or legally
> protected information which is the property of  Landerholm, P.S. or its
> clients.  Any unauthorized disclosure or use of the contents of this e-mail
> is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, notify
> the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> ----------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160622/9de20381/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3203 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160622/9de20381/image001.gif>