[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 14
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Thu Aug 16 16:22:49 PDT 2018
Craig,
Regarding your footpath case, read Roediger v. Cullen, 26 Wash2d 690. The facts are pretty close to yours and would suggest there is not a prescriptive easement. The idea of neighborly courtesies has been developed more in recent years. Also, look at Gamboa v Clark, 183 Wash2d 38 which discussed Roediger.
Given the risks when you ask for a restraining order, which would have to be in a quiet title action, that may not be a good move. The other side can get damages if the court ultimately determines
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: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 14
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. Restraining order (Craig Gourley)
2. Re: Restraining order (Douglas W. Scott)
3. King County Eviction Lawyer (nestor at pplsweb.com)
4. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13 (Stephen Whitehouse)
5. Re: Restraining order (Rick Hoss)
6. holdover, VRBO (Rob Wilson-Hoss)
7. special needs trust referral - Kent (Kimberly Hammit)
8. Re: special needs trust referral - Kent (Jan Kelly)
9. Free CLE: Webinar on Hot Topics in Landlord/ Tenant Law
(Michael Safren)
10. HOA attorney referral (John McLaughlin)
11. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 10 (Lisa Chiang)
12. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 10 (Craig Blackmon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:46:33 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Cc: Tom Hause <tom at glgmail.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Restraining order
Message-ID:
<DM5PR12MB2470303BF5D43381902CD564AE3F0 at DM5PR12MB2470.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Listmates, We are wondering if anyone could share their experience with restraining orders to allow continued use of an easement. Short story is good client has a valid proscriptive easement ( meets all the criteria) over a path they have used since 1940. Bad client bought the burdened property a couple years ago and has now forbidden good client to access the beach over the path. Altercations have been both verbal and physical assault so we have grounds for a protective order but we would like to include an order to keep status quo allowing path use until we can get a hearing on merits of the easement. Good client has a family reunion this weekend which would include use of the beach. No alternative way to access the water. Any insight or experience would be appreciated! Tom Hause in our office is handling the case so if you are contacting directly, his e-mail is tom at glgmail.com<mailto:tom at glgmail.com> Thanks in advance for any insight!!
Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
360.568.5065
360.568.8092 fax
Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>
Be Aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing Wire transfer instructions call us immediately to verify the information prior to sending any funds!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/64a80e01/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:38:25 +0000
From: "Douglas W. Scott" <doug at davisscottlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Restraining order
Message-ID:
<B53EA1F6F4C2654690E6CD24624688BAAD5F8C0C at mbx031-e1-va-2.exch031.domain.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have had good luck recently before the Snohomish County Court Commissioners in getting a Temporary Restraining Order and a very low bond attached. The issue involved the defendant removing personal property from a building. Then in superior court before the Motions calendar the Preliminary Injunction must be obtained and granted by the Judge. The courts like to keep the status quo until all issues can be determined by a Judge and if there is any threat of violence the court will do what needs to be done to attempt to prevent it. It sounds like you have a good case for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
Douglas W. Scott
Rainier Legal Advocates, LLC
465 Rainier Boulevard North, Suite C
Issaquah, Washington, 98027
V. 425.392.8550
F. 425-392-2829
www.rainieradvocates.com<http://www.rainieradvocates.com> f/k/a
www.davisscottlaw.com<http://www.davisscottlaw.com/>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Cc: Tom Hause
Subject: [WSBARP] Restraining order
Listmates, We are wondering if anyone could share their experience with restraining orders to allow continued use of an easement. Short story is good client has a valid proscriptive easement ( meets all the criteria) over a path they have used since 1940. Bad client bought the burdened property a couple years ago and has now forbidden good client to access the beach over the path. Altercations have been both verbal and physical assault so we have grounds for a protective order but we would like to include an order to keep status quo allowing path use until we can get a hearing on merits of the easement. Good client has a family reunion this weekend which would include use of the beach. No alternative way to access the water. Any insight or experience would be appreciated! Tom Hause in our office is handling the case so if you are contacting directly, his e-mail is tom at glgmail.com<mailto:tom at glgmail.com> Thanks in advance for any insight!!
Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
360.568.5065
360.568.8092 fax
Craig at glgmail.com<mailto:Craig at glgmail.com>
Be Aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing Wire transfer instructions call us immediately to verify the information prior to sending any funds!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/ad4a4747/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:22:32 -0700
From: <nestor at pplsweb.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] King County Eviction Lawyer
Message-ID: <013c01d434d5$b387d910$1a978b30$@pplsweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
List mates,
I need a King County eviction lawyer to assist me in removing a tenant from
commercial property. Recommendations will be appreciated.
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) 522-3601
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/11c80f07/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:07:26 -0400
From: Stephen Whitehouse <swhite8893 at aol.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13
Message-ID: <1653f6a27dd-1e9c-e969 at webjas-vad060.srv.aolmail.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
If the spouse was awarded the property in the disso action, then a partition action is no longer possible as the parties are not tenants in common. That is probably a good thing as the court in the disso action has a lot more equitable discretion than a court would have in a partition action. Partition actions can also be very risky, assuming you cannot partition in kind. Under the statutes, it goes up for public sale(although some courts are allowing it to be a normal market sale). It then goes up for bid and if your client does not have the funds to bid, the client is very vulnerable. I do not do disso work, but used to years ago. I think you just get the thing before the court and ask the court to have it sold. Allowing the spouse who has the property to sell it also has pitfalls at that person can sabotage the sale. As a suggestion, you could ask the court to give that person so many months to sell(six at the most since if it isn't sold in that period with this market, s!
omething is wrong), and then requiring that spouse to vacate and put the property in the hands of a receiver of referee. If you do that, make sure that the court order empowers that person to sign all documents necessary to consummate the sale. Also, when you get an offer, it is not a bad idea to have a court approval contingency. While that forces you to move to have the court approve the sale, it also forces either of the parties to object at that time or be forever foreclosed. Probate attorney use this device all the time where there is an heir that thinks the property is worth a whole lot more than it is but has nothing to back it up.
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: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13
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. cpa north re property development (Roger Hawkes)
2. Re: cpa north re property development (Craig Gourley)
3. Re: Partition Action or Not? (Andrew Hay)
4. Re: Partition Action or Not? (Steve Tubbs)
5. Re: Partition Action or Not? (Allen Sakai)
6. Re: Partition Action or Not? (Catherine Clark)
7. Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett (Alan Middleton)
8. Re: Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett (G. Geoffrey Gibbs)
9. Re: Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett (Alan Middleton)
10. Re: Partition Action or Not? (Gregory L. Gilday)
11. medical file retention in Will? (Gerald Sprute)
12. Re: Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett (Gregory L. Ursich)
13. Re: cpa north re property development (Roger Hawkes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:12:22 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: Real Property Listserve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, Business Law
Section <business-law-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: [WSBARP] cpa north re property development
Message-ID:
<693DA7DDC963424895D6BBD758595A21835CA463 at HLFSERVER1.law-hawks.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A client is asking for a referral to a cpa familiar with real property development, preferably north king or south Snohomish county. Please refer someone(s).
PLEASE NOTICE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW, ACROSS THE STREET ALMOST FROM OUR PRIOR ADDRESS; OTHER CONTACT INFO REMAINS THE SAME
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19944 Ballinger Way NE
Suite 100
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/20180814/e459e35d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:38:34 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] cpa north re property development
Message-ID:
<DM5PR12MB24701319EC70A984F548FB1AAE380 at DM5PR12MB2470.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have worked with Bob Bauer at Bauer Evans in Everett many times on complex real estate matters and respect his abilities. 425 252 6909
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 12:12 PM
To: Real Property Listserve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>; Business Law Section <business-law-section at list.wsba.org>
Subject: [WSBARP] cpa north re property development
A client is asking for a referral to a cpa familiar with real property development, preferably north king or south Snohomish county. Please refer someone(s).
PLEASE NOTICE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW, ACROSS THE STREET ALMOST FROM OUR PRIOR ADDRESS; OTHER CONTACT INFO REMAINS THE SAME
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19944 Ballinger Way NE
Suite 100
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/20180814/1b32b688/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:40:52 +0000
From: Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
Message-ID:
<CY4PR1301MB2103529C360AD789DF5487DCB2380 at CY4PR1301MB2103.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I would do that in the divorce action. Motion to force the sale. I would try to set up contempt as well to add some leverage
A
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Catherine Clark
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 10:45 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserve' <wsbarp at LISTS.WSBARPPT.COM>
Subject: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
All:
In a divorce, where there is a final decree directing one spouse to refinance or sell the property to buy the other spouse out, what would you do if the one spouse has not refinanced or sold the property as directed by the decree?
File a motion to enforce in the dissolution action or file a separate action for partition to force a sale. Refinancing in this circumstance is highly optimistic.
Thank you.
Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (206) 838-2528
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/20180814/2d1a1ea3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:54:42 -0700
From: Steve Tubbs <steven.tubbs at comcast.net>
To: "wsbarp at lists. wsbarppt. com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
Message-ID: <395A8AE6-F1CE-4ECE-BCE0-369685D6F7E1 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I?d offer a declaration in the disso action, setting out how, given the decree, refinancing by the obligee spouse is untenable, and that the obligor spouse has failed or refused to act. Based upon the same, the effective remedy is not a ?motion to compel?, but an order allowing the obligee to sell on reasonable terms, with the costs of the same to be deducted from the share of proceeds of sale payable to the defaulting party; and further that the defaulting party pay for the fees and costs otherwise incurred by the obligee spouse to enforce the decree provision pertaining to sale. Good luck!
> On Aug 14, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com> wrote:
>
> All:
>
> In a divorce, where there is a final decree directing one spouse to refinance or sell the property to buy the other spouse out, what would you do if the one spouse has not refinanced or sold the property as directed by the decree?
>
> File a motion to enforce in the dissolution action or file a separate action for partition to force a sale. Refinancing in this circumstance is highly optimistic.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Catherine "Cat" Clark
> Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
> 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
> Seattle, WA 98121
> Phone: (206) 838-2528
> 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.
>
> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
> 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/20180814/3491c113/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:32:56 +0000
From: Allen Sakai <asakai at jgslaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
Message-ID:
<MWHPR11MB2045DC4C7EE20B0618F04DA0A1380 at MWHPR11MB2045.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I am working on one now as referee where the divorce counsel did move for partition. One thing that you may want to consider is some sort of writ of ejectment order as part of the motion. Otherwise you?ll end up selling the property and the other party won?t leave. Then you can?t deliver possession to the buyer.
Allen R. Sakai
Attorney at Law
Jeppesen Gray Sakai P.S.
10655 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 801
Bellevue, WA 98004-5044
Phone: 425-454-2344
Fax: 425-646-8889
asakai at jgslaw.com<mailto:asakai at jgslaw.com>
www.jgslaw.com<http://www.jgslaw.com/>
This communication is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication by someone other than the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this firm immediately by collect call to (425)-454-2344, or by reply to this communication.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Steve Tubbs
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 12:55 PM
To: wsbarp at lists. wsbarppt. com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
I?d offer a declaration in the disso action, setting out how, given the decree, refinancing by the obligee spouse is untenable, and that the obligor spouse has failed or refused to act. Based upon the same, the effective remedy is not a ?motion to compel?, but an order allowing the obligee to sell on reasonable terms, with the costs of the same to be deducted from the share of proceeds of sale payable to the defaulting party; and further that the defaulting party pay for the fees and costs otherwise incurred by the obligee spouse to enforce the decree provision pertaining to sale. Good luck!
On Aug 14, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com<mailto:Cat at loccc.com>> wrote:
All:
In a divorce, where there is a final decree directing one spouse to refinance or sell the property to buy the other spouse out, what would you do if the one spouse has not refinanced or sold the property as directed by the decree?
File a motion to enforce in the dissolution action or file a separate action for partition to force a sale. Refinancing in this circumstance is highly optimistic.
Thank you.
Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email: cat at loccc.com<mailto: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.
<winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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/20180814/ffd06b90/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:19:11 +0000
From: Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
Message-ID:
<MWHPR19MB11992C8F717257BDA134C46CA33F0 at MWHPR19MB1199.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
All great points folks. Thank you!
Catherine ?Cat? Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (206) 838-2528
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.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Allen Sakai
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:33 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
I am working on one now as referee where the divorce counsel did move for partition. One thing that you may want to consider is some sort of writ of ejectment order as part of the motion. Otherwise you?ll end up selling the property and the other party won?t leave. Then you can?t deliver possession to the buyer.
Allen R. Sakai
Attorney at Law
Jeppesen Gray Sakai P.S.
10655 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 801
Bellevue, WA 98004-5044
Phone: 425-454-2344
Fax: 425-646-8889
asakai at jgslaw.com<mailto:asakai at jgslaw.com>
www.jgslaw.com<http://www.jgslaw.com/>
This communication is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication by someone other than the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this firm immediately by collect call to (425)-454-2344, or by reply to this communication.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Steve Tubbs
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 12:55 PM
To: wsbarp at lists. wsbarppt. com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
I?d offer a declaration in the disso action, setting out how, given the decree, refinancing by the obligee spouse is untenable, and that the obligor spouse has failed or refused to act. Based upon the same, the effective remedy is not a ?motion to compel?, but an order allowing the obligee to sell on reasonable terms, with the costs of the same to be deducted from the share of proceeds of sale payable to the defaulting party; and further that the defaulting party pay for the fees and costs otherwise incurred by the obligee spouse to enforce the decree provision pertaining to sale. Good luck!
On Aug 14, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com<mailto:Cat at loccc.com>> wrote:
All:
In a divorce, where there is a final decree directing one spouse to refinance or sell the property to buy the other spouse out, what would you do if the one spouse has not refinanced or sold the property as directed by the decree?
File a motion to enforce in the dissolution action or file a separate action for partition to force a sale. Refinancing in this circumstance is highly optimistic.
Thank you.
Catherine "Cat" Clark
Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (206) 838-2528
Cell: (206) 409-8938
Fax: (206) 374-3003
Email: cat at loccc.com<mailto: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.
<winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto: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/20180815/2adc3b77/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:37:40 -0700
From: "Alan Middleton" <alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net>
To: <solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org>,
<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Message-ID: <003e01d434ad$e8c57bf0$ba5073d0$@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Listmates, I need recommendations for a commercial RE appraiser to appraise
property located in Everett. Thanks!
Alan S. Middleton
Law Offices of Alan S. Middleton PLLC
10605 SE 240th St. PMB 444
Kent, WA 98031
Tel (206) 533-0490
<mailto:alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net> alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net
<http://www.alanmiddletonlaw.com/> www.alanmiddletonlaw.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/d8e4a972/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:44:03 +0000
From: "G. Geoffrey Gibbs" <ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Message-ID:
<MWHPR14MB17759766A79F9FDADFE7EF02CB3F0 at MWHPR14MB1775.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My "go to" commercial appraiser in the area is Jim Dodge and Valbridge. Extremely competent and professional and usually carries the day in court. jdodge at valbridge.com<mailto:jdodge at valbridge.com> In the same firm is Bob Macaulay who is also excellent. GGG
G. Geoffrey Gibbs | Anderson Hunter Law Firm
2707 Colby Avenue | Everett, WA 98201
Phone: (425) 252-5161 | Fax: (425) 258-3345
ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com<mailto:ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com> / www.andersonhunterlaw.com<http://www.andersonhunterlaw.com/>
[Description: Description: AH Color Large-no-tag]
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.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Alan Middleton
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:38 AM
To: solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org; wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Listmates, I need recommendations for a commercial RE appraiser to appraise property located in Everett. Thanks!
Alan S. Middleton
Law Offices of Alan S. Middleton PLLC
10605 SE 240th St. PMB 444
Kent, WA 98031
Tel (206) 533-0490
alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net<mailto:alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net>
www.alanmiddletonlaw.com<http://www.alanmiddletonlaw.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/6a47aa13/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1721 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/6a47aa13/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:47:10 -0700
From: "Alan Middleton" <alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Message-ID: <007c01d434af$3afbd210$b0f37630$@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks, Geoff.
Alan S. Middleton
Law Offices of Alan S. Middleton PLLC
10605 SE 240th St. PMB 444
Kent, WA 98031
Tel (206) 533-0490
<mailto:alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net> alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net
<http://www.alanmiddletonlaw.com/> www.alanmiddletonlaw.com
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of G. Geoffrey Gibbs
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:44 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
My "go to" commercial appraiser in the area is Jim Dodge and Valbridge.
Extremely competent and professional and usually carries the day in court.
jdodge at valbridge.com <mailto:jdodge at valbridge.com> In the same firm is Bob
Macaulay who is also excellent. GGG
G. Geoffrey Gibbs | Anderson Hunter Law Firm
2707 Colby Avenue | Everett, WA 98201
Phone: (425) 252-5161 | Fax: (425) 258-3345
ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com <mailto:ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com> /
<http://www.andersonhunterlaw.com/> www.andersonhunterlaw.com
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.
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 Alan Middleton
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:38 AM
To: solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org
<mailto:solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org> ;
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Listmates, I need recommendations for a commercial RE appraiser to appraise
property located in Everett. Thanks!
Alan S. Middleton
Law Offices of Alan S. Middleton PLLC
10605 SE 240th St. PMB 444
Kent, WA 98031
Tel (206) 533-0490
<mailto:alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net> alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net
<http://www.alanmiddletonlaw.com/> www.alanmiddletonlaw.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/3446f2ad/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1721 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/3446f2ad/image001-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:36:20 -0700
From: "Gregory L. Gilday" <cole-gilday at stanwoodlaw.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Partition Action or Not?
Message-ID: <978863fd-10c3-aedb-494a-0a7156f4d467 at stanwoodlaw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
I just met with client who is in this same predicament - house was
awarded to his ex, it was never refinanced, and is now going through the
foreclosure process. There seems to equity there to protect, but the ex
refuses to do anything. ? As this is not in my wheelhouse, would anyone
like to take this on?? Client lives in Wenatchee and the dissolution was
in Lincoln County.? I'll pass on all names.
Thank you,
Very Truly Yours,
Gregory L. Gilday
Law Office of Cole & Gilday, P.C.
//
10101 - 270th St. NW
Stanwood, WA 98292
(360) 629-2900 (Telephone)
(360) 629-0220 (Fax)
This message contains confidential and privileged information that is
intended only for the named recipient(s).Unless you are the named
recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are prohibited from reading,
copying, distributing or otherwise disseminating such information.If you
receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.
On 8/14/2018 10:44 AM, Catherine Clark wrote:
> All:
>
> In a divorce, where there is a final decree directing one spouse to refinance or sell the property to buy the other spouse out, what would you do if the one spouse has not refinanced or sold the property as directed by the decree?
>
> File a motion to enforce in the dissolution action or file a separate action for partition to force a sale. Refinancing in this circumstance is highly optimistic.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Catherine "Cat" Clark
> Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
> 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250
> Seattle, WA 98121
> Phone: (206) 838-2528
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180815/8a208882/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:52:55 +0000
From: Gerald Sprute <sprutelaw at msn.com>
To: "RPPT listserv" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] medical file retention in Will?
Message-ID:
<CY4PR20MB12398E7EDB2518ABB40993A6AA3F0 at CY4PR20MB1239.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Good morning!
I?m drafting a Will for a client who is in the medical profession, and has her own client files that need to be retained for 10 years. She has a professional colleague who would take charge of the files after client passes, for whatever admin needs to be taken care of. Client is an anesthesiologist, no ongoing doctor-patient relation so that?s not a concern.
Is this something that you would put in the Will, or would this be better left as instructions to the Executor? There?s no asset value in the files, it?s more of a caretaker responsibility over the files. Any thoughts on the best way to address this?
Jerry Sprute
Law Office of Gerald A. Sprute
P.O. Box 1657
Duvall, WA 98019
Tel: (425) 892-4079
Fax: (425) 844-9151
www.sprutelaw.com <http://www.sprutelaw.com>
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this communication is Confidential and may also be Attorney-Privileged.
The information contained in this communication is intended for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that unauthorized viewing, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is in violation of the Electric Communications Privacy Act of 1986 as well as the Domestic and International Laws and Treaties. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Gerald Sprute by telephone at 425.892.4079 and delete it from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/87c81b2b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:02:53 -0700
From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Message-ID:
<7F8A366B7F232F429D049910E0F8A75102A17A32AD44 at Exch1.insleebest.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
At the same firm, Darrin Shedd, MAI, is also excellent, at Valbridge.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D43487.7DA80660]
Gregory L. Ursich | Shareholder
Skyline Tower, Suite 1500 | 10900 NE 4th Street | Bellevue, WA 98004
P: 425.450.4258 | F: 425.635.7720
vCard<http://www.insleebest.com/uploads/vcards/gursich.vcf> | website<http://www.insleebest.com/> | gursich at insleebest.com<mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>
This electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of G. Geoffrey Gibbs
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:44 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
My "go to" commercial appraiser in the area is Jim Dodge and Valbridge. Extremely competent and professional and usually carries the day in court. jdodge at valbridge.com<mailto:jdodge at valbridge.com> In the same firm is Bob Macaulay who is also excellent. GGG
G. Geoffrey Gibbs | Anderson Hunter Law Firm
2707 Colby Avenue | Everett, WA 98201
Phone: (425) 252-5161 | Fax: (425) 258-3345
ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com<mailto:ggibbs at andersonhunterlaw.com> / www.andersonhunterlaw.com<http://www.andersonhunterlaw.com/>
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D43487.7DA80660]
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.
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 Alan Middleton
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 8:38 AM
To: solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org<mailto:solo-and-small-practice-section at list.wsba.org>; wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Commercial RE Appraiser in Everett
Listmates, I need recommendations for a commercial RE appraiser to appraise property located in Everett. Thanks!
Alan S. Middleton
Law Offices of Alan S. Middleton PLLC
10605 SE 240th St. PMB 444
Kent, WA 98031
Tel (206) 533-0490
alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net<mailto:alanscottmiddleton at comcast.net>
www.alanmiddletonlaw.com<http://www.alanmiddletonlaw.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/f1f34f0f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2843 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/f1f34f0f/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1721 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/f1f34f0f/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:27:56 +0000
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] cpa north re property development
Message-ID:
<693DA7DDC963424895D6BBD758595A21835CD575 at HLFSERVER1.law-hawks.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks, Craig.
PLEASE NOTICE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW, ACROSS THE STREET ALMOST FROM OUR PRIOR ADDRESS; OTHER CONTACT INFO REMAINS THE SAME
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19944 Ballinger Way NE
Suite 100
Shoreline, WA 98155
www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/>
206 367 5000 voice
206 367 4005 fax
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 12:39 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] cpa north re property development
I have worked with Bob Bauer at Bauer Evans in Everett many times on complex real estate matters and respect his abilities. 425 252 6909
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 Roger Hawkes
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 12:12 PM
To: Real Property Listserve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>; Business Law Section <business-law-section at list.wsba.org<mailto:business-law-section at list.wsba.org>>
Subject: [WSBARP] cpa north re property development
A client is asking for a referral to a cpa familiar with real property development, preferably north king or south Snohomish county. Please refer someone(s).
PLEASE NOTICE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW, ACROSS THE STREET ALMOST FROM OUR PRIOR ADDRESS; OTHER CONTACT INFO REMAINS THE SAME
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173
19944 Ballinger Way NE
Suite 100
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/20180815/9b7edf82/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/e0ba2107/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:17:53 -0700
From: "Rick Hoss" <rhoss at hctc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Restraining order
Message-ID: <012601d434dd$6deafb00$49c0f100$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Gamboa v. Clark 183 Wn 2d 38 (2015) presumption of permissive use.
Roediger v. Cullen 26 Wn 2d 690 (1946) use of footpath to beach arose from
neighborly acquiescence
Two problems for your client.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:47 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Cc: Tom Hause
Subject: [WSBARP] Restraining order
Listmates, We are wondering if anyone could share their experience with
restraining orders to allow continued use of an easement. Short story is
good client has a valid proscriptive easement ( meets all the criteria) over
a path they have used since 1940. Bad client bought the burdened property a
couple years ago and has now forbidden good client to access the beach over
the path. Altercations have been both verbal and physical assault so we have
grounds for a protective order but we would like to include an order to keep
status quo allowing path use until we can get a hearing on merits of the
easement. Good client has a family reunion this weekend which would include
use of the beach. No alternative way to access the water. Any insight or
experience would be appreciated! Tom Hause in our office is handling the
case so if you are contacting directly, his e-mail is tom at glgmail.com
Thanks in advance for any insight!!
Gourley Law Group
Snohomish Escrow
The Exchange Connection
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
360.568.5065
360.568.8092 fax
Craig at glgmail.com
Be Aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email
containing Wire transfer instructions call us immediately to verify the
information prior to sending any funds!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain
legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the
contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all
copies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/1cd094e9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:49:41 -0700
From: "Rob Wilson-Hoss" <rob at hctc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] holdover, VRBO
Message-ID: <01d601d434e1$df414670$9dc3d350$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Client owns three short-term vacation rentals. Current customer has language
barrier, but transaction through VRBO with contract. Today was check-out, at
10:00 am. Customer left this morning but left all belongings in unit. Unit
rented for tonight to others. Customer not answering phones. Client can put
tonight's renters in an adjacent unit, but only for tonight. Client doesn't
know what the intent of holdovers is, but needs the unit.
Nothing specific in contract giving permission to box up and store
belongings in case of holdover.
This has to be a common problem with hotels and motels, so, anyone with any
thoughts? Thanks much.
Rob
Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
236 West Birch Street
Shelton, WA 98584
360 426-2999
www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
<mailto:rob at hctc.com> rob at hctc.com
This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified
that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us by
reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed above)
and immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments.
Thank you.
This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to
collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. To
the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. ? 1692)
applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the
condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to
it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have
the right to seek advice of legal counsel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/512c5e74/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:30:23 -0700
From: Kimberly Hammit <kim at kimhammitlaw.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] special needs trust referral - Kent
Message-ID:
<CAA4O8-oNDiZxGcCcSy-JCSge6Hy4cz13+re32XqPBPPSHQ9-Sg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I have a PC who would like to leave life insurance proceeds (maybe) to a
non-relative, adult with autism who is living in a group home. She was a
former caregiver and wants to make sure the guy is taken care of. Anyone
want me to pass on their name? Its out of my geographical area ...
Kimberly S. Hammit
Attorney
***** PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS FIRM IS CLOSING AND I AM MOVING TO THE
FOLLOWING FIRM - PLEASE UPDATE THE CONTACT INFORMATION ACCORDINGLY *****
kim at gsjoneslaw.com
GS JONES LAW GROUP, P.S.
1155 Bethel Ave
Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-9221
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/8cc1c70e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:38:01 -0700
From: Jan Kelly <jan at jankellylaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] special needs trust referral - Kent
Message-ID:
<CAATkJAxpH1=K25LTYneud-+W_=63vvNaPU_V=SLCqssXgHyotg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Kim,
I travel to that area for estate planning clients and would be happy to
meet with them. I hope you're doing well!
Best,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Kimberly Hammit <kim at kimhammitlaw.com>
wrote:
> I have a PC who would like to leave life insurance proceeds (maybe) to a
> non-relative, adult with autism who is living in a group home. She was a
> former caregiver and wants to make sure the guy is taken care of. Anyone
> want me to pass on their name? Its out of my geographical area ...
>
> Kimberly S. Hammit
> Attorney
>
> ***** PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS FIRM IS CLOSING AND I AM MOVING TO THE
> FOLLOWING FIRM - PLEASE UPDATE THE CONTACT INFORMATION ACCORDINGLY *****
>
> kim at gsjoneslaw.com
>
> GS JONES LAW GROUP, P.S.
> 1155 Bethel Ave
> Port Orchard, WA 98366
> (360) 876-9221
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
--
*Jan Kelly, JD/MBA*Attorney at Law
JK Law
PO Box 1964
Poulsbo, WA 98370
Direct Line (702) 338-6733
Facsimile (360) 779-2265
*Licensed in Nevada and Washington*.
THIS EMAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED ONLY
FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY
CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM
DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. Any unauthorized review, use, copying,
disclosure or distribution of any information contained in or attached to
this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
communication in error, or are not the named recipient, please immediately
notify the sender by email by "reply to sender only" and delete this
message and any attached documents from your computer. Receipt by anyone
other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of confidentiality
and/or any legal privilege. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/34cfd42c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:58:37 -0700
From: Michael Safren <msafren at gmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>, "WSBA
Probate & Trust Listserv" <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Free CLE: Webinar on Hot Topics in Landlord/ Tenant
Law
Message-ID:
<CACXQqye=7EYss8-kb3kYgL-UCCvoh1Ggjgsr6arGQHHzWv8wng at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello Fellow Listservers:
The WSBA RPPT section is proud to partner with the WSBA to present a Free
CLE Webinar on Hot Topics in Landlord/ Tenant Law on Monday, August 27th
starting at 2:00 pm to 2:45 pm. This webinar has been approved for .75 law
and legal procedure credits.
Registration link below:
https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/CLEStore/CLECalendar/MeetingDetails.aspx?productId=14157918
Details including agenda and faculty are listed below:
Agenda
- Legislative update on state and federal Landlord-Tenant Law
- Hot topics in residential landlord-tenant law
- Discussion of recent Seattle tenant litigation
*FACULTY*
*Danielle Flatt* - Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC, Seattle
*SCHEDULE*
1:30 p.m. Registration Opens
2:00 p.m. Webinar Begins
2:45 p.m. Adjourn
Kind regards,
Michael Safren
Web Editor, RPPT section
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180815/893c30fa/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 03:49:43 +0000
From: John McLaughlin <johnpmclaughlin at hotmail.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA attorney referral
Message-ID:
<DM3PR16MB10503369AB37C12FC8475423AE3E0 at DM3PR16MB1050.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hello All:
I?m hoping to find a referral for a potential client, a nonprofit corporation set up as a homeowner?s association, which needs assistance with drafting and recording restrictive covenants. I know there are several attorneys active on this list that practice in this area. Ideally, the attorney would be local to the Seattle area.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
John McLaughlin
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180816/d5721ccc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:43:01 -0700
From: Lisa Chiang <feesimple7 at gmail.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 10
Message-ID:
<CAP1iqxt6XixBeiXUqQXXOWS=QLnSh13H4YKWd3voc38MR7-e8g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:50:55 -0700
From: Craig Blackmon <craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 10
Message-ID:
<CAG1D8uZo0ALoS+TRvK8G4FEz-oyDZN2Yje6BCdF+iBJ-FB3xWg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Lisa, maybe I'm an idiot, but I generally trust any licensed LPO working
for a licensed title insurance company - and that title insurance company
is in turn routinely happy to be named as trustee in the DOT. I've yet to
suffer any consequence or adverse result.
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.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Lisa Chiang <feesimple7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.namprd
>> 11.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/2018081
>> 0/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/2018081
>> 0/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/2018081
>> 1/084761a4/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/2018081
>> 1/084761a4/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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180816/688912cc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 47, Issue 14
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180816/879892e0/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list