[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 10

Thu Aug 16 09:43:01 PDT 2018

Dear listmates:

Does anyone have a particular title company and if so, person they like to
work with for a) issuing title insurance and b) servicing the deed of trust
(i.e. serving as trustee)?  This is a seller financed residential
(condominium) transaction in King County.

Feel free to email me offline.

Thanks in advance.  Best regards,

Lisa

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:00 PM, <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com> wrote:

> 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: "Ratification" Of HOA Budget and Reality Check
>       (Paul Neumiller)
>    2. Re: Ancillary Probate in OH? (Wickert Law)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 22:22:35 +0000
> From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] "Ratification" Of HOA Budget and Reality Check
> Message-ID:
>         <BLUPR11MB0466DA9F525DB6ABC364F961D2240 at BLUPR11MB0466.
> namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Some listservers have emailed me privately and suggested that the HOA may
> be correct because of the following language found in new RCW64.90.525:
>  "Unless at that meeting the unit owners of units to which a majority of
> the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage
> specified in the declaration reject the budget, the budget and the
> assessments against the units included in the budget are ratified, whether
> or not a quorum is present."
>
> The thought is that by not putting the budget to an actual vote, then a
> majority of the members didn't reject the budget, and so the new budget is
> deemed ratified.
>
> But it still seems to me that the members have to actively vote on the
> matter.  See RCW 64.38.035(3) "The notice of any meeting shall state the
> time and place of the meeting and the business to be placed on the agenda
> by the board of directors for a vote by the owners, including the general
> nature of any proposed amendment to the articles of incorporation, bylaws,
> any budget or changes in the previously approved budget that result in a
> change in assessment obligation, and any proposal to remove a director.")
>
> It seems to me that the WA legislature is requiring an actual vote.  In
> shifting the burden of the Board and favoring the Board, note that it takes
> a majority to reject the budget rather than requiring a majority to accept
> the new budget.
>
> Even in the notorious case of Casey v. Sudden Valley Community Association
> (182 Wn.App. 315 (Div. 1 2014), there was an actual vote.
>
>
>
> [cid:image002.jpg at 01D430BB.370CCB70]
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 4:09 PM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: [WSBARP] "Ratification" Of HOA Budget and Reality Check
>
>
> I have been approached by a Chapter 64.38 HOA who has a creative take on
> the requirement of the members to "ratify" the annual budget.  For years,
> the HOA has published the annual budget and sent the proper notices and
> then held its annual meeting within the proper time limits.  Then the Board
> presents the budget at the annual meeting but, in their own words, "as long
> as the majority of the membership did not notify the board that they reject
> the budget, we considered the budget ratified at the time of the annual
> meeting."  As a clarification, the HOA President wrote to me and stated "In
> addition to publishing a high level budget a month before our annual
> meeting, we review the budget at our annual meeting.  We do not call for a
> vote.  Again, our understanding is that as long as the membership does not
> voice rejection of the budget, we considered it ratified."
>
>
>
> OK, Chapters 64.38 and 64.90 (under the budget provision which applies to
> "old" HOAs) do not define "ratify" or "ratification" but common sense and
> other sources indicate that "to ratify" requires an affimative action or
> vote.    It seems this HOA is equating "to ratify" with "to acquiesce."  In
> case I am missing something here and before I advise them they are doing it
> wrong (tactfully, of course), I wanted to throw it out to the collective
> hive for a reality check first.  Does "ratification" of the budget mean the
> members have to affirmatively take a vote?
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/
> 20180810/ca1d87e0/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 12625 bytes
> Desc: image002.jpg
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/
> 20180810/ca1d87e0/image002-0001.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:04:27 -0700
> From: "Wickert Law" <wickertlaw at comcast.net>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Ancillary Probate in OH?
> Message-ID: <014b01d4319d$bf3e61b0$3dbb2510$@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have a potential client who wants to do a solvent probate for her
> mother?s estate. Decedent is also on title to a house in OH with her
> brother. The OH house has been condemned and red tagged from occupancy.
> There are serious non-compliance issues to render the value of the OH
> property in the land only and has been subject to government fines and
> penalties for almost a year. Client wants to just open the WA probate and
> not deal with the OH house and let it go.
>
>
>
> Wondering what pearls of wisdom others may have? To ignore the distressed
> OH house is an easy answer, but it is still part of the estate.
>
>
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> Maureen A. Wickert, Attorney at Law
>
>
>
>
>
> 14900 Interurban Avenue South, Suite 255
>
>         Tukwila, WA 98168
>
>        Phone: 206-859-5502
>
>          Fax: 206-260-9005
>
>       <http://www.wickertlawoffice.com/> www.wickertlawoffice.com
>
>        wickertlaw at comcast.net
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be confidential
> and/or legally privileged. The information is intended for the use of the
> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be
> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
> transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by email
> immediately.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/
> 20180811/084761a4/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 2753 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/
> 20180811/084761a4/image001-0001.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 10
> **************************************
>

-- 

*International estate planning and settlement, trusts, real estate and
nanny visas*
206.569.8838

This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain
information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally
privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated
above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the
information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please delete the message. Thank
you.

*Circular 230 Disclaimer*. Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180816/c561d1c0/attachment.html>