[WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Thu Jun 7 13:37:48 PDT 2018

Howard, I got a laugh out of the orange squeeze. My client was so distressed at the process he had to undertake in order to get a habitual squatter tenant out of his house that he immediately put the small house on the market and said they never wanted to be landlord again.

Douglas W. Scott
Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott
Windermere Building
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203
Issaquah, Washington, 98027
V.  425.392.8550
F.  425-392-2829
www.davisscottlaw.com<http://www.davisscottlaw.com/>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of HOWARD HERMAN
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 1:26 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Doug,

And after all that, you probably wound up with an uncollectable judgment. I have one landlord lawyer who never asks for anything except an order terminating the tenancy and granting the writ. The tenants readily sign off on such an order. It was a few experiences like you describe that led him to convince his landlords that getting the property back and eating the costs and  his fee was just the cost of doing business and the sooner he gets the property back the sooner he is back in business. What is that old saying, "A bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit." At least you know what the result is going to be. We had a judge years ago who would get counsel in chambers and try to get them to settle by saying, "A lawsuit is like squeezing an orange. You never know which way it will spurt".

Howard Herman
Herman Herman and Jolley PS
509 220 5810

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Douglas W. Scott
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 9:45 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Howard, It sounds like you are diligent. My client, who only had one rental, failed to do a background check.  I looked the tenants name up on King County's website to immediately see that the tenant had gone through a UD complaint just the year before. The landlord had attempted to reason with the tenant for months to pay rent or move out.  Then the tenant hide from service.  Tenant knew how to use the system and got a pro bono lawyer from the Northwest Justice Project. We ended up going to court in downtown Seattle twice and had to await long calendars. Cost the landlord a bunch of lost rents (he had an underlying mortgage) and costs and attorney fees. I would think that a quick search of the courts website may disclose a UD history of these guys in most cases.

Douglas W. Scott
Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott
Windermere Building
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203
Issaquah, Washington, 98027
V.  425.392.8550
F.  425-392-2829
www.davisscottlaw.com<http://www.davisscottlaw.com/>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of HOWARD HERMAN
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 9:22 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Doug, that is a good point and the  ones that come through the volunteer office are screened. However, when the defendants appear on the unlawful detainer docket and you see them for the first time for  only a few minutes, there is no opportunity to screen and you just have to shoot from the hip. However, if they appear to have a valid defense I can usually get a continuance which allows me to do the necessary background check. The docket can be anywhere from one to as many as fifteen cases and if I am the only volunteer that day there is no time to do any screening. This is a fault of our system. We should have internet access to the files when the docket is made up which would give the volunteer a week or so to get familiar with the cases, do some discovery and be semi prepared when the docket is called. We have been promised this for several years, but it hasn't happened yet. Sometimes I get a heads up from the volunteer office about a case on the upcoming docket and the  office has the ability to copy a file and email it to me. That has proved to be a great help. We just keep doing the best we can under the circumstances.

Howard Herman
Herman Herman and Jolley PS
509 220 5810

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Douglas W. Scott
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 8:04 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Howard,  I do have one request when you represent pro bono tenants:  please screen them so as not to represent a tenant who purposely goes from landlord to landlord and fails to pay rent awaiting the landlord to eventually evict them and then gets a pro bono lawyer to locate a technicality that sends the landlord back to court multiple times, plus expenses to the Sheriff, and costs the landlord (who may be a working class guy with one rental unit) thousands of dollars. Then the tenant leaves the place a complete mess.

Douglas W. Scott
Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott
Windermere Building
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203
Issaquah, Washington, 98027
V.  425.392.8550
F.  425-392-2829
www.davisscottlaw.com<http://www.davisscottlaw.com/>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of HOWARD HERMAN
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:43 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Kary, thank you so much!

This is a beautiful case and right here in my own back yard, Spokane WA, Division III. My practice is primarily limited to pro bono defense of unlawful detainer cases and this case is a primer for anyone representing either the landlord or the tenant. I am familiar with many of the cases cited in the opinion, and to have so many  issues so clearly and decisively decided in one case is remarkable. At least half of the cases I have handled in the last 20 years could have been won with this case as authority. Landlords, beware of the volunteer that comes to court with one case.

Howard Herman
Herman Herman and Jolley PS
509 220 5810

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 8:52 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

I haven't been following this thread, but this new case seems to be on-topic.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/351378_pub.pdf

Kary L. Krismer

John L. Scott/KMS Renton

206 723-2148
On 6/4/2018 4:49 PM, HOWARD HERMAN wrote:
Craig, here is the case law and statute.

In Carlstrom, Division One of this court observed, "Show cause hearings are summary proceedings to determine the issue of possession pending a lawsuit." Id. at 788, 990 P.2d 986<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=990+P.2d+986&scd=WA> (emphasis added) (citing Meadow Park, 54 Wash.App. at 375, 773 P.2d 875<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=773+P.2d+875&scd=WA>). The statute allows a landlord to apply for a writ to expeditiously determine who should possess the property while an unlawful detainer action is pending. Meadow Park, 54 Wash.App. at 376, 773 P.2d 875<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=773+P.2d+875&scd=WA>. In fact, since a pendente lite writ issues on summary proceedings, the landlord is typically required to post a bond [3<http://lawriter.net/caselink.aspx?series=P.3d&scd=WA&citationno=109%20P.3d%20422#FN3>] to take possession. RCW 59.18.380. That is because "[a] show cause hearing is not the final determination of the rights of the parties in an unlawful detainer action." Carlstrom, 98 Wash.App. at 788, 990 P.2d 986<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=990+P.2d+986&scd=WA>.

Howard Herman
Herman Herman & Jolley PS
509 220 5810

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 8:37 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Thank you all for your insight.  I know in Snoco, the commissioners have made it pretty clear that they won't grant a judgment if the tenant has vacated.

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 Paul Neumiller
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 4:14 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Craig, I read the statute differently from the other listserv members.  I have had tenants move out after service of the summons and complaint but before the show cause hearing.  When I informed the judge at the show cause hearing that the T had moved out, the judge basically tossed the file aside and said "next".  Then I pointed out to the judge that while it was no longer necessary to obtain a Writ of Restitution, T still met the definition of being in unlawful detainer because T was in possession of the premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and so the LL was still entitled to a judgement.  The judge frowned but signed the judgement.

RCW 59.12.030 says that the "tenant of real property for a term less than life is guilty of unlawful detainer either: ...
3) When he or she continues in possession in person or by subtenant after a default in the payment of rent, and after notice in writing requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the detained premises, served (in manner in RCW 59.12.040<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.12.040> provided) in behalf of the person entitled to the rent upon the person owing it, has remained uncomplied with for the period of three days after service thereof. The notice may be served at any time after the rent becomes due."

I would argue that if T stays in the premises for ANY TIME after the 3 day notice has expired (and service of the summons and complaint), then T is "guilty of unlawful detainer."  But, I guess it comes down to what does "continues in possession" mean?  I have successfully argued that LL is still entitled to a judgment because the T is "guilty of unlawful detainer" even though T has vacated the premises.  The section says it's unlawful detainer if T continues in possession after the end of the 3 day period, it doesn't say that T must STAY in the premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and until the Show Cause Hearing.   No, I do not have case law to back it up but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

________________________________
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 Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com<mailto:craig at glgmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:04 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Listmates, I know that when a tenant vacates the property priortothe show cause, the UD action is no longer valid and tje action must be converted to a money due or breach suit if you want a judgment. What I don't know is the cite for why that is true. Anyone know the cite  for this? Also does it only apply to residential or is it the same for commercial? Thanks in advance for your wisdom.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

_______________________________________________

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/20180607/32cfa612/attachment.html>