[WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment
Robert R. Cole
cole-gilday at stanwoodlaw.net
Thu Jun 7 15:00:28 PDT 2018
That's why I advise my clients to start by waving some $100 bills in the
tenants' face and tell them the money is theirs if they move within a
couple days, and if they don't the money will be given to the lawyer.
Very Truly Yours,
Robert R. Cole
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 6/7/2018 1:26 PM, HOWARD HERMAN wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180607/796e6073/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list