[WSBARP] Test for Meth?

[Catherine Clark]

And that is right.  I'm looking for a practical solution here that avoids a suit and the eventual defense involving Caveziel

Catherine C. Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone:  (206) 838-2528
Direct Dial:  (206) 274-7941
Cell:  (206) 409-8938
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email:  cat at loccc.com

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information transmission is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:16 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Test for Meth?

In reading the overview, it was obvious that the broker knew of the meth manufacturing but failed to disclose it ("the agent violated his duty to disclose known material facts about the property.") That is substantially different from your case.  In your case, the tenants were arrested for possession, but not the manufacturing of meth.  In your case, the owner wanted to say there was no manufacturing because he didn't know about any.  I think that's going too far but the point is that he is not aware of any manufacturing itself.  Is he required to prove a negative?

Now, from a purely practical point, the owner may want to test the house just so he can more easily market the house and remove the sigma of the meth, but I don't think he, legally speaking, has to test the house to prove the non-manufacturing of meth.

Maybe some of the broker attorneys can chime in here.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D2FBC5.C31DB9C0]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:56 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Test for Meth?

Well maybe.  But Bloor v. Fritz,  143 Wn.2d 718 (2008), appears to suggest otherwise.

Overview

Because substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the agent knew of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property, the agent violated his duty to disclose known material facts about the property under Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.030<https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=23b05059-73d4-43c8-945d-7eeec648f6bd&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A4S69-0NM0-TXFX-X1XW-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A4S69-0NM0-TXFX-X1XW-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=10841&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWP-6PM1-2NSD-K4J1-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=m4ntk&earg=sr0&prid=bdd3e573-5c67-4a48-894f-7b31483793e3>. Also, the trial court did not err in concluding that the agent negligently misrepresented a material fact in failing to disclose the illegal drug manufacturing on the property. Furthermore, listing and showing the property without disclosing its history of illegal drug manufacturing had the capacity to deceive any member of the public who used the listing directory or expressed interest in the property. In addition, the agent's conduct impacted a public interest. Thus, the agent violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. In the suit against the former owners, the trial court did not err in rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement. To restore the buyers to their pre-contract position, the former owners had to pay the $ 149,000 debt together with the unpaid interest that actually accrued, penalties, and foreclosure costs that the lender assessed against the buyers.


Catherine C. Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone:  (206) 838-2528
Direct Dial:  (206) 274-7941
Cell:  (206) 409-8938
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email:  cat at loccc.com<mailto:cat at loccc.com>

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information transmission is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.

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, July 12, 2017 9:40 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Test for Meth?

I would question the duty to actively look for problems.  Another course of action may be to advise them to disclose exactly what they know, which is that previous tenants were arrested for possession of meth (and state nothing regarding manufacturing) .  Once the disclosure has been made, isn't it then buyer's duty to research the importance of that this disclosure?

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D2FBC5.C31DB9C0]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:10 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Test for Meth?

All:

I have become aware of a rental property which has served as a drug house.  Recently, 6 people were arrested there, 5 of whom were in possession of meth.  The house was damaged during its time as a drug house.  The owner would like to sell.  They tell me that no manufacturing of meth occurred on the property.  They believe this because no one has told them otherwise.

That isn't good enough for me.  I think it prudent to get the property tested and then take appropriate action based on that report.

Who would you recommend for such work?

Catherine C. Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone:  (206) 838-2528
Direct Dial:  (206) 274-7941
Cell:  (206) 409-8938
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email:  cat at loccc.com<mailto:cat at loccc.com>

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information transmission is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.  If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170713/edab8c2e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9984 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170713/edab8c2e/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9102 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170713/edab8c2e/image002.jpg>