[WSBARP] Form 17 residential

Tue Apr 3 15:14:11 PDT 2018

I'm not so sure this wouldn't come under the economic loss rule as 
expressed by Alejandre v. Bull.  From that decision: "In short, the 
purpose of the economic loss rule is to bar recovery for alleged breach 
of tort duties where a contractual relationship exists and the losses 
are economic losses.   If the economic loss rule applies, the party will 
be held to contract remedies, regardless of how the plaintiff 
characterizes the claims."

Here the contractual remedy is rescinding the contract within a limited 
period of time.

Note they excluded fraud claims from the economic loss rule.

Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148

On 4/3/2018 1:51 PM, marc holmeslawgroup.com wrote:
>
> Kary,
>
> I do not agree with her take on the meaning of striking out the “Info 
> Verification Period” caluse.  Her premise is that the 10 day info 
> verification contingency period insulates the seller from buyer 
> misrepresentation claims based on a material inaccuracy.  Sure, it 
> might give the seller a basis to assert a defense that the buyer 
> waived any such misrepresentation claim but this clause does not 
> contain any waiver language whatsoever and doesn’t even mention the 
> word misrepresentation.  That does not seem like enough to constitute 
> a voluntary waiver of a known right.
>
> Moreover, what’s so magical about 10 days?  If a buyer has the Info 
> Verification clause in place but does not discover a material 
> inaccuracy until after the 10 day period has run are they just 
> screwed?  They don’t have a contractual right to terminate and per 
> Annie’s analysis, they have given up their right to later bring a 
> seller misrepresentation claim?  Does that seem right?
>
> If a buyer strikes out the clause in its entirety, isn’t that 
> effectively the buyer saying I understand I could have had an extra 10 
> days for due diligence but I have done enough for my own satisfaction 
> so I hereby reduce this time period to zero days.  Why shouldn’t 
> buyers be allowed to make that decision?
>
> Marc Holmes
>
> Holmes Law Group PLLC
>
> 2303 W. Commodore Way, # 306
>
> Seattle WA 98199
>
> HolmesLawGroup.com <http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
>
> marc at holmeslawgroup.com <mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
>
> Ofc: 206-357-4224
>
> Cell: 206-849-0853
>
> *From:*wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com 
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 1:10 PM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 residential
>
> Marc raises a great point about agents striking the paragraph W 
> information verification period language, erroneously thinking that it 
> helps the seller.  I recently had a multiple offer situation where 40% 
> of the offers struck that language.
>
> Here's a slightly stressed out/annoyed Annie bothered by the fact that 
> agents don't seem to be listening to her!  Paragraph w is covered at 
> about the 2:25 mark--and stay for the surprise at the very end!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esd0eLwkBRo
>
> Kary L. Krismer
> John L. Scott/KMS Renton
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 4/3/2018 12:57 PM, marc holmeslawgroup.com wrote:
>
>     If they used an MLS form purchase and sale agreement, look for the
>     Information Verification clause on the last page of that form.  It
>     creates a 10 day contingency period “to verify all information
>     provided by the Seller or Listing Firm related to the Property.” 
>     More and more buyers are voluntarily striking this clause but if
>     your client did not and you’re still within that time period, then
>     that would seem like a good basis to terminate.
>
>     It’s not clear who discovered the septic bedroom issue but if it
>     was your client rather than the seller, then you may be out of
>     luck if the Form 17 rescission window has run out and your client
>     either affirmatively waived the info verification contingency or
>     let it lapse
>
>     Per RCW 64.06.0_40_(1), a seller has a duty to amend their Form 17
>     when they learn of a material inaccuracy in the form except when
>     it was brought to their attention by the buyer or someone acting
>     on the buyer’s behalf.
>
>     *RCW 64.06.040*
>
>     *After delivery of disclosure statement—Additional
>     information—Seller's duty—Buyer's options—Closing the transaction.*
>
>     (1) If, after the date that a seller of real property completes a
>     real property transfer disclosure statement, the seller learns
>     from a source other than the buyer or others acting on the buyer's
>     behalf such as an inspector of additional information or an
>     adverse change which makes any of the disclosures made inaccurate,
>     the seller shall amend the real property transfer disclosure
>     statement, and deliver the amendment to the buyer.
>
>     Marc Holmes
>
>     Holmes Law Group PLLC
>
>     2303 W. Commodore Way, # 306
>
>     Seattle WA 98199
>
>     HolmesLawGroup.com <http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
>
>     marc at holmeslawgroup.com <mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
>
>     Ofc: 206-357-4224
>
>     Cell: 206-849-0853
>
>     *From:*wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
>     <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com><wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>     <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>*On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 11:26 AM
>     *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
>     <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>; nestor at pplsweb.com
>     <mailto:nestor at pplsweb.com>
>     *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 residential
>
>     Did they just waive the Form 35 inspection rights or also the Form
>     17 (the second place for the buyer to sign on Form 17)?
>
>     If just the former I'm not sure a buyer can still back out where
>     the answer is wrong.  I'd love to hear the answer of others.  But
>     chances are there's at least one answer on the Form 17, the answer
>     to which is not N/A, which the seller failed to answer.  My
>     question would be whether you could ask for the answer to that
>     question at this point and then back out based on the new Form 17
>     coming in?
>
>     Kary L. Krismer
>
>     John L. Scott/KMS Renton
>
>     206 723-2148
>
>     On 4/3/2018 10:40 AM, nestor at pplsweb.com
>     <mailto:nestor at pplsweb.com> wrote:
>
>         Client comes in and waived inspection under Form 35. Seller
>         provided a Form 17 that mispresented the capacity of the
>         septic system. The way I see, Buyer can back out due to the
>         mis presentation in spite of the waiver. Any other recourse?
>
>         *Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law *
>
>         *Admitted to practice law in Washington & Florida *
>
>         *Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary*
>
>         *Puget Property Legal Services, PC*
>
>         *11900 NE First Street Suite 300*
>
>         *Bellevue, WA 98005*
>
>         *Tel. (425) 961-0519*
>
>         *Fax. (888) 837-0616*
>
>         *nestor at pplsweb.com* <mailto:nestor at pplsweb.com>**
>
>         **
>
>         *ATTENTION - This e-mail message and any attachment to this
>         e-mail message may contain confidential information that is
>         legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you
>         must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use
>         or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you
>         have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
>         immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at the phone
>         numbers provided herein and delete this message. Please note
>         that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is
>         a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of
>         this message or any attachments may not have been produced by
>         the sender.*
>
>         **
>
>         *P****Please consider the environment before printing this
>         e-mail.*
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         WSBARP mailing list
>
>         WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>
>         http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     WSBARP mailing list
>
>     WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
>
>     http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180403/22bac82f/attachment.html>