[WSBARP] Test for Meth?

[NC]

Given the potential health risks especially to children, investigation is
the correct thing to do. Would start with the crim file or maybe call the
prosecutor because your client is a victim of criminal activity. They can
inform you about the level of alleged activity at the residence. This way
it proceeds one step at a time as you gain more info, you can make the best
decisions

On Thursday, July 13, 2017, Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: 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>
> 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. 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
>
>
>
> 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 9:40 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <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?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: 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>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>

-- 
Nicholas L. Clapham
(206)939-0262

NOTICE- This email message may contain confidential and privileged
information. It is intended only for the named recipent(s) and may contain
attorney work product and/or information exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Any unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message. This does not constitute an electronic
signature.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 and other IRS
regulations, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter(s) addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170713/9d6d42cf/attachment.html>