[WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles

Wed Jan 18 16:48:29 PST 2017

Having represented cops, I can say with some confidence that the
frustration of law enforcement is directly proportional to the value of
steel as paid by recyclers.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Rob Wilson-Hoss <rob at hctc.com> wrote:

> 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 <(360)%20426-2999>
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com <http://www.hossandwilsonhoss.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.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Paul Neumiller]
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com <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 <(360)%20426-2999>
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com <http://www.hossandwilsonhoss.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 <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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170118/5366bb48/attachment.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/20170118/5366bb48/image002.jpg>