[WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

[Rob Wilson-Hoss]

Well, it isn't real property, but others may know more than I about that.
What I do know is that this statute is overdue for a serious overhaul. There
is a proposed amendment before the Legislature but it only gets about a
tenth of the way towards solving the problem. Landlords have more juice in
Olympia than tenants, apparently. 

 

Sheriff's departments are really challenged by this statute, and I don't
blame them. Much better to find another way to deal with the stuff, such as
the statutory option. It may be more expensive for the landlord, but dumping
the junk on the street is just bad in every way. Your neighbors will despise
you, the Sheriff's department will fight you any way it can, and your karma
will be dramatically violated. 

 

By the way, if this is in a development with covenants, there may be a weird
twist. In most such developments, the public streets are really only rights
of way over the lots, which each extend to the middle of the street. So, if
the covenants prohibit dumping rubbish or trash on a lot, or nuisances in
general, or noxious or offensive things on lots, then in actuality, if the
landlord is dumping this stuff on the nearest public property, and we assume
for the sake of argument that the right of way is public property, then if
the landlord dumps the stuff on the nearest public property, he or she is
dumping it on his own lot (the part that is overlain by the public right of
way, but still part of his own lot) and in violation of the covenants. I
have made this argument successfully, against a landlord who really deserved
to be "corrected."

 

Rob

 

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss 
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP 
236 West Birch Street 
Shelton, WA 98584 
360 426-2999

www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
 <mailto:rob at hctc.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: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:25 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

 

After finally working the issues out with city and county officials, I have
got them to back off and not arrest or fine my landlord clients for moving
the tenant’s personal property to the nearest public property (they tried to
charge littering and illegal dumping of garbage.) RCW 59.18.312 says, in
part, “If the tenant or the tenant's representative objects to the storage
of the property or the landlord elects not to store the property because the
tenant has not served a written request on the landlord to do so, the
property shall be deposited upon the nearest public property and may not be
stored by the landlord.
”)  BUT, the hold out are the evicting sheriffs who
says that if my landlord client moves (or drags) a tenant’s vehicle to the
sidewalk and street, they’ll charge the landlord (“because we’ll know who
moved it there”).  

 

Before I move up the chain of command for my local sheriff and point out RCW
59.18.312, I was wondering if any of you had the same problem and how you
resolved it.  Do you agree that a tenant’s vehicle that is left on the
premises after the execution of a writ of restitution is considered the
tenant’s “personal property” and thus can be moved “to the nearest public
property” under RCW 59.18.312?  Thanks for your input.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170118/6c0e0464/attachment.html>