[WSBARP] Judicial foreclosures and HOA

[Carmen Rowe]

Richard -

I am curious why an HOA/COA, absent mirroring a statutory requirement,
would have this in their CCRs/declaration? You've seen this before absent
such a statute?

Seems a resource that the association is giving up for nothing. In
practice, at least in my experience, while the obligation to do so can be
murky banks will often square the past dues upon the eventual sale to
ensure title/avoid the hassle. (Getting them to pay along the way is a
whole other story; but at least there is often eventual payment)

Just curious what's out there.

Your advice for when an advisor is involved in drafting such language is
very helpful.



Carmen Rowe, Attorney


Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com

*Mailing address: *1673 S. Market Blvd. #202, Chehalis, WA 98532
*Olympia/Lacey office: *1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503
*Seattle office: *1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154


*We also offer virtual meeting options, and are often available to meet
with you in an alternate location convenient to you.*

*Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential. If you receive
this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard
any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing
this email with anyone.

If we are communicating with you regarding a debt or monies owed, THIS MAY
BE AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT, AND ANY INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR THAT
PURPOSE. You have the right to seek legal advice from an attorney. To the
extent that the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies, this
firm is acting as a debt collector for the firm's client named above. Any
information obtained will be used for collection purposes.


> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:02:08 +0000
> From: Richard Holland <rich at pnwle.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Judicial Foreclosures & HOAs
> Message-ID:
>         <MWHPR15MB1407D03340F410CA209687EAC5240 at MWHPR15MB1407.
> namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> While admittedly I have personally seen this come up more in Oregon
> (because of how the statute is worded), I have had it come up in Washington
> and am just passing this along for those HOA advisors.  For sake of
> brevity, here is the Oregon Statue that, in various forms of language,
> appears in many CC&Rs:
>
> Oregon Statute 94.723 Common expenses; liability of first mortgagee, once
> a lot in a planned community is foreclosed upon the mortgagee and
> subsequent purchaser shall not be liable for any of the common expenses
> chargeable to the lot which became due before the mortgagee or purchaser
> acquired title to the lot.  The unpaid expenses shall become a common
> expense of all lot owners including the mortgagee or purchaser.
>
> The problem is when is "Title" acquired after a judicial foreclosure?  One
> argument is that it is the date of sale but that isn't accurate because you
> do not get a Deed (which is the instrument that conveys TITLE) until after
> the redemption period.  The other obvious one is that it is the date of the
> deed - though I have also heard the date of recording of the deed argued.
> If you represent the lender, you want it to be the date the lender actually
> got title.  If you represent the HOA, the obvious issue is that the debtor
> is no longer responsible for payment after the date of sale - they have
> been foreclosed out - so who is responsible for paying the dues during the
> redemption period?  (And remember, if the US Gov't is on the title that can
> be 18 months in some situations).
>
> When I have had the opportunity to advise HOAs, I suggest that they either
> specify this as "the date of sale" or as "the date the mortgagee obtained
> the right of possession" or I suppose you could say "the date the purchaser
> acquired title or the right to possession, whichever is earlier" but being
> a verbose sort why not go all out and say "The purchaser shall not be
> liable for any of the common expenses chargeable to the lot which became
> due before the earlier of:  1) The date of sale; 2) the date the purchaser
> acquired title; or 3) the date the purchaser obtained the right to
> possession".    And yes, a right of possession in the general sense could
> be in a rental agreement but not in the context of where the provision is
> in the CC&Rs.  Anyway, it's a random thing to post but it came up for me
> again today so it was fresh on my mind and I thought I would pass it along.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard L. Holland
>
> [logo-for-print.jpg]
>
> 603 4th Avenue, Suite 100                                PLEASE NOTE OUR
> NEW ADDRESS!
> Kirkland, WA 98033
> 425-836-6240  / 425-748-3901 (fax)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170314/436966a3/attachment.html>