[WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

[Rob Wilson-Hoss]

I am interested in the notion that what the Legislature does is necessarily
related to right and wrong. In this case, I think it is more related to
lobbying by landlords. I sat as court commissioner on the calendar where
these are heard for a couple of years, and see pretty much all sides of
these issues. Including the side of the Sheriff's department, which is the
entity left to deal with couches on roads, at least for triage purposes.

 

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 3:19 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

 

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
 <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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
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:  <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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/fba7f435/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7458 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170118/fba7f435/image002-0001.jpg>