[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 32, Issue 11
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Fri May 12 13:08:52 PDT 2017
Cat,
I believe there is authority that when one party in a JTWROS conveys out to another, it converts it to a tenancy in common.
Steve
Stephen Whitehouse
Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP
P.O. Box 1273
601 W. Railroad Ave.
Shelton, Wa. 98584
360-426-5885
swhite8893 at aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Fri, May 12, 2017 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 32, Issue 11
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Insurance on Property In Trust (Teunis J. Wyers)
2. Pre-Closing Encumbrance (Craig Blackmon)
3. Re: Insurance on Property In Trust (Mark Vohr)
4. eviction of tenant with disability (Robert S Schuck)
5. real estate and my son (Roger Hawkes)
6. Re: eviction of tenant with disability (Paul Neumiller)
7. Re: eviction of tenant with disability (Scott Thomas)
8. Forfeiture and Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit (Michael Kvistad)
9. JTROS Question (Catherine Clark)
10. Re: JTROS Question (Marcus Fry)
11. Re: JTROS Question (Rick Hoss)
12. Re: JTROS Question (John McCrady)
13. Re: JTROS Question (Paul Neumiller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 12:00:21 -0700
From: "Teunis J. Wyers" <teunisj at wyerslawpc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Insurance on Property In Trust
Message-ID:
<CAAVFOSgVcZUN9BMYN2-Zu1-Ga1_9k_zgGZRJGPnvE6958M=Leg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Actually, the assets of a living trust should be held in the names of
persons, such as "John and Jane Doe, Trustees of the Doe Family Living
Trust".
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Richard Holland <rich at pnwle.com> wrote:
> Not a trust attorney by any means nor an insurance attorney ? so basically
> my input is just about worthless ? but logically couldn?t the named insured
> assign the proceeds to the trust in some memorialized manner?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Rich Holland
>
> rich at pnwle.com
>
> 603 4th Avenue, Suite 100
>
> Kirkland, WA 98033
>
> 877.785.8734 <(877)%20785-8734> / 866.982.5080 <(866)%20982-5080> (fax)
>
>
>
> BE AWARE! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email
> containing a change in WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call our office
> immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** WE DO NOT
> CHANGE OUR WIRE INSTRUCTIONS**
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication, and in any attached
> document(s), is privileged and/or confidential, intended solely for the
> individual/entity to whom/which it was sent. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
> copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this email in error, please notify me immediately at the email address,
> mailing address, or telephone or fax number above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Vohr
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:25 AM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Insurance on Property In Trust
>
>
>
> Question: We are trying to determine how to best obtain homeowners
> insurance for property in a trust. We are being told the policy has to be
> issued in the name of a person. The problem is that if there is a claim,
> the named person gets the payout ? who is not the owner, which I can see as
> creating a problem for the trustee.
>
>
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
>
> Ohana Financial Services
>
> Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
>
> PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133
>
> T: (206) 782-1189 F: (206) 782-1434
>
> mcv at ohanafc.com www.ohanafc.com
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
>
>
>
> This communication may contain information that is confidential. It was
> intended only for the named or a specific recipient. If you have received
> this communication in error. Please delete it immediately and contact the
> sender to advise them of improper delivery.
>
>
>
> This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the
> recipient. The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither
> this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender
> creates an attorney client relationship with the sender. If you seek legal
> advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
--
Teunis J. Wyers @ Wyers|Wyers, Attorneys
Oregon Office:
216 Columbia St. - P.O. Box 917
Hood River, OR 97031
(541)386-2210/610-1520 (fax)
Washington Office:
218 E. Steuben St. - P. O. Box 421
Bingen, WA 98605
(509) 493-2772/493-2406 (fax)
Email: teunisj at wyerslawpc.com
Web: www.wyerslawpc.com
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), 18 U.S.C., Sec. 2510 - 2522,
is confidential and privileged. This email is solely for the personal and
confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. Receipt by anyone other
than the individual recipient(s) is NOT a waiver of attorney-client
privilege. Any violation of the ECPA is subject to the penalties stated
therein. If you have received this message in error, please notify me
immediately by reply e-mail and immediately delete the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/665a32e1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 12:50:23 -0700
From: Craig Blackmon <craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com>
To: WSBA Real Property List Serve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Pre-Closing Encumbrance
Message-ID:
<CAG1D8uaU0Z3hDdmofyJCKjWpJ2=ozKzQn=FYa4aYFmwbV3-CRQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Listmates, direction to authority for the following proposition - or
correction of my misunderstanding - would be very much appreciated:
A seller may not burden the property with a new easement after entering
into a contract for sale but prior to closing.
Is "equitable interest" the right term? I don't know if its this Maytober
rain (I'm looking forward to Juneuary) or what, but my research skills are
flagging. Thanks in advance for any guidance you can provide.
Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
Seattle Real Estate Lawyer <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
Seattle WA 98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949 Fax: (206) 770-7328
@LawyerBroker <https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
How to Buy Without an Agent
<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent> | How
to Sell FSBO <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO>
| RE Glossary
<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/b0ddf17c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:42:14 +0000
From: Mark Vohr <mcv at ohanafc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Insurance on Property In Trust
Message-ID:
<5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E1859880A at OHANA100.ofcdomain.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Yes, but the trustee is an entity.
Mark
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133
T: (206) 782-1189 F: (206) 782-1434
mcv at ohanafc.com<mailto:mcv at ohanafc.com> www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Teunis J. Wyers
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:00 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Insurance on Property In Trust
Actually, the assets of a living trust should be held in the names of persons, such as "John and Jane Doe, Trustees of the Doe Family Living Trust".
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Richard Holland <rich at pnwle.com<mailto:rich at pnwle.com>> wrote:
Not a trust attorney by any means nor an insurance attorney ? so basically my input is just about worthless ? but logically couldn?t the named insured assign the proceeds to the trust in some memorialized manner?
Thanks,
Rich Holland
rich at pnwle.com<mailto:rich at pnwle.com>
603 4th Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
877.785.8734<tel:(877)%20785-8734> / 866.982.5080<tel:(866)%20982-5080> (fax)
BE AWARE! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing a change in WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call our office immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** WE DO NOT CHANGE OUR WIRE INSTRUCTIONS**
The information contained in this communication, and in any attached document(s), is privileged and/or confidential, intended solely for the individual/entity to whom/which it was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately at the email address, mailing address, or telephone or fax number above.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] On Behalf Of Mark Vohr
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:25 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Insurance on Property In Trust
Question: We are trying to determine how to best obtain homeowners insurance for property in a trust. We are being told the policy has to be issued in the name of a person. The problem is that if there is a claim, the named person gets the payout ? who is not the owner, which I can see as creating a problem for the trustee.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Mark
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133
T: (206) 782-1189<tel:(206)%20782-1189> F: (206) 782-1434<tel:(206)%20782-1434>
mcv at ohanafc.com<mailto:mcv at ohanafc.com> www.ohanafc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ohanafc.com_&d=DQMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=Ib_b9seP0MgbnqsUgnVd_1nAtONW9t5Lrjm5uuQnSNI&s=ffgk3rMdqEqa2d-xZFh2JZ-548ufvn7mYxInvqWZTks&e=>
CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
This communication may contain information that is confidential. It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient. If you have received this communication in error. Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.
This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient. The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender. If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DQMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=Ib_b9seP0MgbnqsUgnVd_1nAtONW9t5Lrjm5uuQnSNI&s=OR6YzrvfJ-k_jCHe82B3zSzln9dZ9jRxA5P8WxivUP0&e=>
--
Teunis J. Wyers @ Wyers|Wyers, Attorneys
Oregon Office:
216 Columbia St. - P.O. Box 917
Hood River, OR 97031
(541)386-2210/610-1520 (fax)
Washington Office:
218 E. Steuben St. - P. O. Box 421
Bingen, WA 98605
(509) 493-2772/493-2406 (fax)
Email: teunisj at wyerslawpc.com<mailto:teunisj at wyerslawpc.com>
Web: www.wyerslawpc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wyerslawpc.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=Ib_b9seP0MgbnqsUgnVd_1nAtONW9t5Lrjm5uuQnSNI&s=pgRA9hvL3q8Sm4GG2V8z7N76Dx3bQdsgGokMc2PssJs&e=>
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), 18 U.S.C., Sec. 2510 - 2522, is confidential and privileged. This email is solely for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. Receipt by anyone other than the individual recipient(s) is NOT a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Any violation of the ECPA is subject to the penalties stated therein. If you have received this message in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and immediately delete the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/7f8ffe05/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 21:10:26 +0000
From: Robert S Schuck <rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability
Message-ID:
<BN6PR08MB2593D60A7E3441C918BC5ABCAEED0 at BN6PR08MB2593.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PC leased home to boss and now wants he and his wife out, lease expired. The wife is disabled and the tenant is threating the PC with lawsuit because of wife's disability. I am familiar with LL?T law-but the disability issue is another complication.
Robert S. Schuck
Kennedy,Schuck & Miller, PLLC
1520 140th NE, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)451-3760 (telephone)
(425)451-3878 (facsimile)
rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com<mailto:rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com>
This correspondence is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information protected by Attorney-Client privilege. If you are not a person for whom this message was intended, please delete it from your system immediately, refrain from copying or forwarding any part of the message, and kindly notify me at (425) 451-3760 or at rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com<mailto:rsschuck at qwest0ffice.net> Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/1f522135/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 21:15:02 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] real estate and my son
Message-ID:
<693DA7DDC963424895D6BBD758595A2182AD7CD9 at HLFSERVER1.law-hawks.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My son has a thorny issue involving real estate: his right to a property where he has lived and cared for the owner for 2.5 years; owner is now disabled and in afh. He needs to consult with someone knowledgeable about landlord tenant and other possible claims to real estate. I am happy to pay some knowledgeable soul for an hour or so to help him sort through his potential claims.
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19909 Ballinger Way NE
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 voice
206 367 4005 fax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/12e95d69/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 21:47:43 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability
Message-ID:
<CY1PR1101MB1225CE1F33DAE113FEB608DCD2ED0 at CY1PR1101MB1225.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Had a serious confrontation with a disabled tenant a few years back and the language below is from a portion of my letter to her (don?t know if the research is still good):
?3. Regarding the reasonable accommodation, it does not appear that you are entitled to a reasonable accommodation to extend the lease beyond the lease?s natural expiration of June 30, 2013. One type of disability discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act is the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. First, there does not seem to be a relation or nexus between your disability and the requested accommodation. Please provide me with additional information that shows the relationship between your disability and the need for the requested accommodation. As you may know, simply being disabled is not enough of a reason for requesting an accommodation. There must be some reasonable relation between the specific disability and the requested accommodation. As you know, Mr. XXXX has already!
accepted your previous requested reasonable accommodation as to the installation and reestablishment of the washer and dryer hook-ups.
You appear to argue that your disability prevents you from working and, therefore, are poor and unable to find alternative housing. However, the courts have found that being poor is not an adequate basis for the purposes of a reasonable accommodation. Indeed, you are making the same argument as the plaintiff in Salute:
?We now turn to the more fundamental question of whether a landlord?s participation in the Section 8 program should be deemed an ?accommodation? (regardless of its reasonableness) within the meaning of the statute. Plaintiffs' claim is a novel one because they do not contend that they require an accommodation that meets and fits their particular handicaps. Rather, they claim an entitlement to an accommodation that remedies their economic status, on the ground that this economic status results from their being handicapped. We think it is fundamental that the law addresses the accommodation of handicaps, not the alleviation of economic disadvantages that may be correlated with having handicaps.?
For more, see:
Congress could not have intended the FHAA to require reasonable accommodations for those with handicaps every time a neutral policy imposes an adverse impact on individuals who are poor. The FHAA does not elevate the rights of the handicapped poor over the rights of the non-handicapped poor. Economic discrimination?such as the refusal to accept Section 8 tenants?is not cognizable as a failure to make reasonable accommodations, in violation of ? 3604(f)(3)(B). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's rejection of plaintiffs' claims under the ?reasonable accommodations? provision of the FHAA.
Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293, 302 (2d Cir. 1998)
And further:
Put simply, in the case at bar, plaintiff has no need for the Village to accept the Guarantor Agreement to accommodate his handicap because his handicap is not preventing him from obtaining an apartment at The Village. Instead, it is plaintiff's financial situation which impedes him from renting an apartment at The Village, and it is plaintiff's financial situation which he is requesting that defendants accommodate. The FHAA does not require that this be done. Also, while plaintiff argues that his financial situation is directly attributable to his handicap, such a contention is nothing more than an attempt by him to transform his ?financial status? into a ?handicap? in order to secure relief under the FHAA. This court cannot accept this argument because it clearly stretches the FHAA beyond its intended bounds.
Schanz v. Vill. Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784, 792 (E.D. Mich. 1998)
Secondly, necessary reasonable accommodations afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A non-disabled tenant does not have the unfettered right to extend a lease in the State of Washington beyond the lease?s natural expiration without the landlord?s consent. Therefore, your requested accommodation exceeds the rights of even a non-disabled tenant.
That being said, is there a possible alternative accommodation that would effectively address your disability-related needs without an extension under the lease? Without further information, I am unable to understand if you are requesting an additional month to reside in the unit or if you are asking for the right to remain in the premises indefinitely. Please clarify your request.?
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D2CA64.C2FFA580]
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Robert S Schuck
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 2:10 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability
PC leased home to boss and now wants he and his wife out, lease expired. The wife is disabled and the tenant is threating the PC with lawsuit because of wife?s disability. I am familiar with LL?T law?but the disability issue is another complication.
Robert S. Schuck
Kennedy,Schuck & Miller, PLLC
1520 140th NE, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
(425)451-3760 (telephone)
(425)451-3878 (facsimile)
rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com<mailto:rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com>
This correspondence is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information protected by Attorney-Client privilege. If you are not a person for whom this message was intended, please delete it from your system immediately, refrain from copying or forwarding any part of the message, and kindly notify me at (425) 451-3760 or at rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com<mailto:rsschuck at qwest0ffice.net> Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/f862b736/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14511 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/f862b736/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:30:46 -0700
From: Scott Thomas <scott.glen.thomas at gmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability
Message-ID:
<CAH_+PbXkB_PNPdJ=pqVrYh3cHafAcNWuJJAWSXVOBDg2odkBhQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Most landlords are prohibited from discrimination in housing. 42 USC 3604;
RCW 49.60.030 and .222. A tenant who is being evicted for discriminatory
reasons or for failure to comply with a rule or or rent increase that is
discriminatory may raise the defense in an UD action. *Josephinium Assoc.
v. Kahli*, 111 Wn. App. 617 (2002). I think this is just another way of
saying that a nexus is required per Paul's letter above. Discrimination
includes failure to reasonably accommodate, and a reasonable accommodation
can be requested any time before a physical eviction occurs. *Radecki v.
Joura*, 114 F.3d 115 (8th C.r. 1997).
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Had a serious confrontation with a disabled tenant a few years back and
> the language below is from a portion of my letter to her (don?t know if the
> research is still good):
>
>
>
> ?3. Regarding the reasonable accommodation, it does not appear
> that you are entitled to a reasonable accommodation to extend the lease
> beyond the lease?s natural expiration of June 30, 2013. One type of
> disability discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act is the refusal
> to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or
> services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with
> a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. First,
> there does not seem to be a relation or nexus between your disability and
> the requested accommodation. Please provide me with additional information
> that shows the relationship between your disability and the need for the
> requested accommodation. As you may know, simply being disabled is not
> enough of a reason for requesting an accommodation. There must be some
> reasonable relation between the specific disability and the requested
> accommodation. As you know, Mr. XXXX has already accepted your previous
> requested reasonable accommodation as to the installation and
> reestablishment of the washer and dryer hook-ups.
>
>
>
> You appear to argue that your disability prevents you from working and,
> therefore, are poor and unable to find alternative housing. However, the
> courts have found that being poor is not an adequate basis for the purposes
> of a reasonable accommodation. Indeed, you are making the same argument as
> the plaintiff in *Salute*:
>
>
>
> ?We now turn to the more fundamental question of whether a landlord?s
> participation in the Section 8 program should be deemed an ?accommodation?
> (regardless of its reasonableness) within the meaning of the statute.
> Plaintiffs' claim is a novel one because they do not contend that they
> require an accommodation that meets and fits their particular handicaps.
> Rather, they claim an entitlement to an accommodation that remedies their
> economic status, on the ground that this economic status results from their
> being handicapped. We think it is fundamental that the law addresses the
> accommodation of handicaps, not the alleviation of economic disadvantages
> that may be correlated with having handicaps.?
>
>
>
> For more, see:
>
>
>
> Congress could not have intended the FHAA to require reasonable
> accommodations for those with handicaps every time a neutral policy imposes
> an adverse impact on individuals who are poor. The FHAA does not elevate
> the rights of the handicapped poor over the rights of the non-handicapped
> poor. Economic discrimination?such as the refusal to accept Section 8
> tenants?is not cognizable as a failure to make reasonable accommodations,
> in violation of ? 3604(f)(3)(B). Accordingly, we affirm the district
> court's rejection of plaintiffs' claims under the ?reasonable
> accommodations? provision of the FHAA.
>
>
>
> Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293, 302 (2d Cir.
> 1998)
>
>
>
> And further:
>
>
>
> Put simply, in the case at bar, plaintiff has no need for the Village to
> accept the Guarantor Agreement to accommodate his handicap because his
> handicap is not preventing him from obtaining an apartment at The Village.
> Instead, it is plaintiff's financial situation which impedes him from
> renting an apartment at The Village, and it is plaintiff's financial
> situation which he is requesting that defendants accommodate. The FHAA does
> not require that this be done. Also, while plaintiff argues that his
> financial situation is directly attributable to his handicap, such a
> contention is nothing more than an attempt by him to transform his
> ?financial status? into a ?handicap? in order to secure relief under the
> FHAA. This court cannot accept this argument because it clearly stretches
> the FHAA beyond its intended bounds.
>
> Schanz v. Vill. Apartments, 998 F. Supp. 784, 792 (E.D. Mich. 1998)
>
>
>
> Secondly, necessary reasonable accommodations afford a person with a
> disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A
> non-disabled tenant does not have the unfettered right to extend a lease in
> the State of Washington beyond the lease?s natural expiration without the
> landlord?s consent. Therefore, your requested accommodation exceeds the
> rights of even a non-disabled tenant.
>
>
>
> That being said, is there a possible alternative accommodation that would
> effectively address your disability-related needs without an extension
> under the lease? Without further information, I am unable to understand if
> you are requesting an additional month to reside in the unit or if you are
> asking for the right to remain in the premises indefinitely. Please
> clarify your request.?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert S Schuck
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2017 2:10 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] eviction of tenant with disability
>
>
>
> PC leased home to boss and now wants he and his wife out, lease expired.
> The wife is disabled and the tenant is threating the PC with lawsuit
> because of wife?s disability. I am familiar with LL?T law?but the
> disability issue is another complication.
>
> Robert S. Schuck
> Kennedy,Schuck & Miller, PLLC
> 1520 140th NE, Suite 200
> Bellevue, WA 98005
> (425)451-3760 <(425)%20451-3760> (telephone)
> (425)451-3878 <(425)%20451-3878> (facsimile)
> rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com
>
>
>
> *This correspondence is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information
> protected by Attorney-Client privilege. If you are not a person for whom
> this message was intended, please delete it from your system immediately,
> refrain from copying or forwarding any part of the message, and kindly
> notify me at (425) 451-3760 <(425)%20451-3760> or at *
> *rsschuck at ksmlawfirm.com* <rsschuck at qwest0ffice.net>* Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170511/c9864280/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170511/c9864280/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 01:01:43 +0000
From: Michael Kvistad <mkvistad at andersonhunterlaw.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Forfeiture and Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1401MB2047FE95222E455BD63453CBCAE20 at MWHPR1401MB2047.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have a client who has a recorded Declaration of Forfeiture pursuant to Chapter 61.30 RCW. The Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit needs to be filed, but the borrower, whose interest was forfeited, is not cooperative. Please let me know if you are aware of how to file a REETA without the cooperation of the seller.
C. Michael Kvistad | Attorney | Anderson Hunter Law Firm
2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 1001 | Everett, WA 98201
Phone: (425) 252-5161, Ext. 107 | Fax: (425) 258-3345
mkvistad at andersonhunterlaw.com<mailto:mkvistad at andersonhunterlaw.com> | www.andersonhunterlaw.com<http://www.andersonhunterlaw.com/>
[Sig facebook1]<https://www.facebook.com/AndersonHunterLaw> [Sig linkedin] <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-kvistad/32/a95/720>
This email message may contain confidential and privileged information. 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/3c15347d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2136 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/3c15347d/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4173 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/3c15347d/image002-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:57:48 +0000
From: Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
Message-ID:
<DM5PR02MB263417ED26564A31667156E5A3E20 at DM5PR02MB2634.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
All:
What say you on this.
A & B buy property and take as JTROS. The deed says JTROS "and not as tenants in common." My view is that the title is under JTROS and won't be construed as tenants in common given this language despite the preference for tenancy in common.
B has a terminal disease. B would like to convey his interest in the property to C.
What do you think happens on B's death, which appears to be imminent. My view, is at best, C takes a life estate measured by B's life. I further think that B cannot eliminate the ROS in A by a mere conveyance. Would not A have to agree?
Sorry to wake you on a Friday with a future interest question.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
Cat
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/e6871927/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:12:22 +0000
From: Marcus Fry <mfry at lyon-law.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
Message-ID:
<BN4PR14MB0497FA8F9065825ADCA597C9F6E20 at BN4PR14MB0497.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yes, JTWROS is not a contractual obligation, i.e., that is subject to a breach claim. It is a status of how property is held and provides for a mechanism of transfer upon death. Either owner may sever JTWROS by transferring his or her interest. It destroys the 4 unities of title with the transfer and C would become a TIC with A.
Marcus J. Fry
Lyon, Weigand & Gustafson, P.S.
P.O. Box 1689
Yakima, Washington 98907
Telephone: (509) 248-7220
Facsimile: (509) 575-1883
NOTICES:
Confidentiality: This e-mail transmission may contain information which is protected by attorney-client, work product and/or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately and return the e-mail to us by choosing Reply (or the corresponding function on your e-mail system) and then deleting the e-mail.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:58 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
All:
What say you on this.
A & B buy property and take as JTROS. The deed says JTROS "and not as tenants in common." My view is that the title is under JTROS and won't be construed as tenants in common given this language despite the preference for tenancy in common.
B has a terminal disease. B would like to convey his interest in the property to C.
What do you think happens on B's death, which appears to be imminent. My view, is at best, C takes a life estate measured by B's life. I further think that B cannot eliminate the ROS in A by a mere conveyance. Would not A have to agree?
Sorry to wake you on a Friday with a future interest question.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
Cat
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/20170512/10bd35d3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:15:55 -0700
From: "Rick Hoss" <rhoss at hctc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
Message-ID: <001601d2cb3b$090f43b0$1b2dcb10$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cat - 64.28.010 grants each JT the unilateral right to sever. "A joint
tenancy shall have the incidents of survivorship and severability as at
common law, including the unilateral right of each tenant to sever the joint
tenancy."
Rick
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:58 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
All:
What say you on this.
A & B buy property and take as JTROS. The deed says JTROS "and not as
tenants in common." My view is that the title is under JTROS and won't be
construed as tenants in common given this language despite the preference
for tenancy in common.
B has a terminal disease. B would like to convey his interest in the
property to C.
What do you think happens on B's death, which appears to be imminent. My
view, is at best, C takes a life estate measured by B's life. I further
think that B cannot eliminate the ROS in A by a mere conveyance. Would not
A have to agree?
Sorry to wake you on a Friday with a future interest question.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
Cat
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/3bb1429d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:50:21 -0700
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
Message-ID:
<A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6350B6CAE at PSTMAILV.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
If I understand your facts correctly, when B conveys to C, the joint tenancy is severed and A and C would hold title as tenants in common.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:58 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
All:
What say you on this.
A & B buy property and take as JTROS. The deed says JTROS "and not as tenants in common." My view is that the title is under JTROS and won't be construed as tenants in common given this language despite the preference for tenancy in common.
B has a terminal disease. B would like to convey his interest in the property to C.
What do you think happens on B's death, which appears to be imminent. My view, is at best, C takes a life estate measured by B's life. I further think that B cannot eliminate the ROS in A by a mere conveyance. Would not A have to agree?
Sorry to wake you on a Friday with a future interest question.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
Cat
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/20170512/afff0abe/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:51:26 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
Message-ID:
<CY1PR1101MB122537872896A3445A378965D2E20 at CY1PR1101MB1225.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
In general, I think everyone?s initial response is correct BUT I had a probate matter about ten years ago where the deceased spouse transferred her interest in the community property residence to her son (by a previous marriage, of course) just before she died. The surviving spouse successfully moved the probate court to set aside the deed to the son because it was an improper transfer of a community property asset without the surviving spouse?s permission. Don?t know if this applies to you but you might want to look into it IF A and B are married.
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D2CB0D.582BE210]
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of John McCrady
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 9:50 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
If I understand your facts correctly, when B conveys to C, the joint tenancy is severed and A and C would hold title as tenants in common.
John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721
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: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:58 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] JTROS Question
All:
What say you on this.
A & B buy property and take as JTROS. The deed says JTROS ?and not as tenants in common.? My view is that the title is under JTROS and won?t be construed as tenants in common given this language despite the preference for tenancy in common.
B has a terminal disease. B would like to convey his interest in the property to C.
What do you think happens on B?s death, which appears to be imminent. My view, is at best, C takes a life estate measured by B?s life. I further think that B cannot eliminate the ROS in A by a mere conveyance. Would not A have to agree?
Sorry to wake you on a Friday with a future interest question.
Thanks for all your thoughts.
Cat
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/20170512/1623cb1b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14511 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/1623cb1b/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 32, Issue 11
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170512/f7feeffc/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list