[WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

[Paul Neumiller]

Thank you for your thoughts but, as you observed, the vehicle is not real property so I do not see how a tenant can argue that a vehicle is not personal property of the tenant and thus subject to being kicked to the curb.  All of my landlords want the tenants and their stuff out and gone forever (many of the tenants have not paid for months and refuse to even answer the door.  Frequently they will yell at the landlord that the landlord can’t kick them out until the landlord gets a court order (indicting that they most likely have been evicted in the past and know how to “game” the system).  I have evicted one woman and her friends four times in less than ten years.  Not all tenants are worthy of your compassion.  That said, on this last eviction, the LL gave the tenants over two extra hours to move their stuff.  I have worked with family members in the past to empty the house.

Moving items to the nearest public property does two things.  Because it is on public property, the tenant can continue to retrieve the personal property without going onto the property and getting arrested for criminal trespass.  Secondly, after the LL gets a court order and, based on RCW 59.18.312, the LL has the right AND the obligation (note that RCW 59.18.312 states that “the property shall be deposited upon the nearest public property and may not be stored by the landlord.”) to move the stuff to the curb.  If the court has blessed the eviction and the legislature has determined that, under certain circumstances, the LL shall move the stuff to the curb, then hasn’t society determined that this isn’t the LL’s problem anymore?  Are you aware of any case or circumstance where a LL has been held liable for a tenant’s personal property after being placed on the curb following RCW 59.18.312.  I know there are stories of where LLs have been threatened and maybe paid money but I am looking for contested cases where the LL didn’t back down.

In many conversations with property managers, I have been told that they have never recouped their costs when they have stored the tenants’ belongings.  For those few LL who have “stored in place”, the residence invariably gets broken into at night because the T is stealing the tenant’s stuff back.

Sorry for the rant but in my practice, I have seen many more tenants take advantage of LLs than the other way around.  Oh, and just for the record, before I am flamed for having a middle name of “Snidely Whiplash”, I have represented many indigent tenants referred to me by the Island County Volunteer lawyer program.


[Paul Neumiller]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:19 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

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<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: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:25 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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/a67ac6e4/attachment.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/20170118/a67ac6e4/image001.jpg>