[WSBARP] Form 17 issue

Mon Nov 7 16:34:21 PST 2016

I agree, generally. But there is lots of room for argument and possibly a
different result.

For example, the instructions require an explanation for every "yes" answer
to a question with an asterisk (and there are many). In my experience,
sellers fail to provide every single explanation actually required. Would
that also render the disclosure "incomplete" such that a right of
rescission exists until closing?

Or what about the fact that the NWMLS Form 17 goes beyond the statutory
language with a "n/a" option. Not hard to imagine an "incomplete"
disclosure that should have been checked "n/a" - but the statute doesn't
require that box to be checked. Rather per the statute the seller should
handwrite "n/a" if the question CLEARLY (quoted term) doesn't apply. What
if it arguably or probably doesn't apply? What answer - if any - is
required in order to trigger the three day right of rescission?

And finally, the statute requires the seller to sign every page - but the
Form 17 has initials only. Technically, absent signature on every page the
disclosure isn't complete. Surely THAT statutory requirement would not be
strictly enforced, so there must be some degree of flexibility.

I think further factual analysis is in order given the wiggle room. Good
luck Steve!

Craig

Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
Seattle Real Estate Lawyer <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
Seattle WA 98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949   Fax: (206) 770-7328
@LawyerBroker <https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
How to Buy Without an Agent
<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent> | How
to Sell FSBO <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO>
 | RE Glossary
<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Gregory L. Ursich <gursich at insleebest.com>
wrote:

> I agree with Annie’s interpretation.  If Form 17 is incomplete, then 3
> days does not start to run.
>
>
>
> [image: ibdr2]
>
> *Gregory L. Ursich *| Shareholder
>
> Skyline Tower, Suite 1500 | 10900 NE 4th Street | Bellevue, WA 98004
>
> P: 425.450.4258 | F: 425.635.7720
>
> vCard <http://www.insleebest.com/uploads/vcards/gursich.vcf> | website
> <http://www.insleebest.com/> | *gursich at insleebest.com
> <gursich at insleebest.com>*
>
> This electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is
> intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed.  If you
> have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to
> the sender.  Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the
> attorney-client or any other privilege.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *atfitz at comcast.net
> *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 10:53 AM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 issue
>
>
>
> There has been significant discussion over this question among RE
> brokerage industry lawyers and not surprisingly, there is no single
> consensus answer.  We would love for you to be a test case at the appellate
> level so we can have an answer!
>
>
>
> I am of the opinion that because the questions seller must answer are
> statutorily mandated, seller MUST comply with seller's statutory
> obligations before the burden shifts to buyer to review and terminate or
> waive within three days of receipt.  Until seller fully complies, buyer's
> termination period does not begin.  It is not up to buyer to let seller
> know that seller did not comply with seller's statutory obligations.
>
>
>
> The voices on the other side of the equation advocate the notion that
> courts will take a more reasonable approach and apply a common sense
> analysis over a black letter interpretation ... substance over form.  Buyer
> had the opportunity to let seller know of a perceived failure in answering
> the questions and secreting that information away until a time that buyer
> wants to terminate the agreement is not "good faith" and would be frowned
> upon by a court.
>
>
>
> I don't believe that you will find a lock solid answer to this question
> unless your client litigates and gets the answer for all of us.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Craig Blackmon" <craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com>
> *To: *"WSBA Real Property Listserv" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Sent: *Monday, November 7, 2016 10:34:56 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 issue
>
>
>
> I dunno. At a minimum, you can argue that the signed and dated
> acknowledgement constituted receipt of the "completed" form. If buyers
> thought the form was incomplete, they shouldn't have acknowledged receipt
> of it. But they did, and the three days ran. The more your facts are
> consistent with "buyer's remorse" and not anything to do with the actual
> Form 17, the stronger your argument.
>
>
>
> That's what I'd argue if I were you. And I don't see any common law basis
> for rescission.
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
>
> Seattle Real Estate Lawyer <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
>
> 92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
>
> Seattle WA 98121
>
> Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949   Fax: (206) 770-7328
>
> @LawyerBroker <https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
>
> How to Buy Without an Agent
> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent>
>  | How to Sell FSBO
> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO> | RE
> Glossary
> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
> electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
> of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
> recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
> nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
> copies.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Douglas W. Scott <doug at davisscottlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> I guess the questions are:  did the buyer rescind based upon something
> generated from the unanswered questions?  Why didn’t the seller eventually
> complete those 2 answers?  Did the buyer ever ask that the seller complete
> them?
>
>
>
> Douglas W. Scott
>
> Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott
>
> Windermere Building
>
> 1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203
> Issaquah, Washington, 98027
> V.  425.392.8550
> F.  425-392-2829
>
> www.davisscottlaw.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Whitehouse
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 12:14 PM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Form 17 issue
>
>
>
> Listmates,
>
>      I am looking for feedback on your experience with a Form 17  issue.
>
>      The form was fully filled out except two answers were left blank. No
> issue was ever raised and now, four days before closing, buyer is
> rescinding on that basis.
>
>      RCW 64.06.030 requires a "completed" statement. However, it also
> states that the buyer has two options to exercise within three days, to
> rescind or to approve and accept the statement. In this case the buyer
> approved and accepted.
>
>      Has the buyer waived the defect, either statutorily, or under the
> common law? I understand there is some conventional wisdom emanating from
> the MLS that the buyer can rescind, but I think they tend to take
> conservative positions.
>
>      Any thoughts?
>
>      Thanks.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
> *Stephen Whitehouse*
>
> *Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP*
>
> *P.O. Box 1273*
>
> *601 W. Railroad Ave.*
>
> *Shelton, Wa. 98584*
> *swhite8893 at aol.com <swhite8893 at aol.com>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161107/5a8b7111/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2843 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161107/5a8b7111/image001.jpg>