[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 58, Issue 9
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Thu Jul 11 12:15:17 PDT 2019
Nestor, I would draft a quit claim deed for the encroacher to sign, the legal being the entirety of your clients' property for purposes of clearing title. I would then do a license for your client to sign referencing an existing fence proximate to the line with an expiration date. The neighbor is being cooperative, so I would keep it at that level. I would then record both, the QCD first.
Steve
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave.Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885
swhite8893 at aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 11, 2019 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 58, Issue 9
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: Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure under
RCW 18.27.114? (David Faber)
2. RR ROW (Chris B)
3. Re: RR ROW (Gregory L. Ursich)
4. Re: RR ROW (Chris B)
5. Re: Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure under
RCW 18.27.114? (Rick Hoss)
6. Re: RR ROW (michael at westseattleattorney.com)
7. Referral, please: Unexpected foreclosure of 2nd (Craig Blackmon)
8. Re: Referral, please: Unexpected foreclosure of 2nd (Kate Love)
9. Re: Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure under
RCW 18.27.114? (Jeff Davis)
10. Fence Encroachment (nestor at pplsweb.com)
11. Re: Fence Encroachment (Bryce Dille)
12. Re: Fence Encroachment (Gregory L. Ursich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:09:36 -0700
From: David Faber <david at faberfeinson.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide
disclosure under RCW 18.27.114?
Message-ID:
<CAKkD=wgEcCE=ZvKd5a16B0XppRm07yoxhRUajSvPdNPZori3nQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Great, thank you for the affirmation, Daniel!
Best,
David J. Faber
Faber Feinson PLLC
210 Polk Street, Suite 1
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4110
*** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.
This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that
you have received this communication in error, please do not print,
copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also,
please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in
error, and destroy the copy you received.***
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:40 AM Daniel Berner <
dberner at phillipsburgesslaw.com> wrote:
> David,
>
>
> Yes, failure to provide the notice to customer document is a fatal flaw to
> a lien claim unless one of the exceptions found in RCW 18.27.114 applies.
>
>
> Further, if a claim of lien is recorded without providing the notice to
> customer document, then the lien claimant is susceptible to a frivolous
> lien motion and also constitutes a per se violation of the consumer
> protection act which both allow for an award of attorney fees and costs.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel Berner
> ------------------------------
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of David Faber <
> david at faberfeinson.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:14:41 AM
> *To:* wsbarp
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure
> under RCW 18.27.114?
>
> There is no way to cure the failure to provide a disclosure under RCW
> 18.27.114 and to recover the right to file a lien under RCW 60.04 after
> work has commenced, correct? Reviewing the statute and A.W.R. Constr., Inc.
> v. L&I, 152 Wn.App. 479 appears dispositive: if the job does not fall into
> one of the exceptions for disclosure under 18.27.114, the failure to
> provide a disclosure constitutes a loss of the right to lien by a
> contractor full stop, but I want to make absolutely certain that I'm not
> mistaken in my read of the statute and case law on point.
>
> Best,
> David J. Faber
> Faber Feinson PLLC
> 210 Polk Street, Suite 1
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
> (360) 379-4110
>
> *** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.
> This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that
> you have received this communication in error, please do not print,
> copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also,
> please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in
> error, and destroy the copy you received.***
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190710/e3371362/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 20:19:58 +0000
From: Chris B <chrisb at heckerwakefield.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] RR ROW
Message-ID:
<1BA41B3255EE974D92CD63CA41B8DA9801104804 at HWFMAIL2.HeckerWakefield.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have a client whose property encroaches onto an old RR right of way (by which I mean improvements including pavement and a retaining wall). I've quickly looked at some old cases that seem to indicate that one can't adversely possess part of a RR ROW. Does anyone have a contrary view? The cases I've looked at are about 100 years old.
Thanks.
Chris Benis
Hecker, Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S.
321 First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98199
206.447-1900 office - 206.447.9075 fax - heckerwakefield.com<http://harrison-benis.com/>
This message contains information that may be CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail chrisb at heckerwakefield.com<mailto:chrisb at heckerwakefield.com>, and delete this message. Thank you very much.
To comply with recent IRS rules, we must inform you that this message, if it contains advice relating to federal taxes, was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Under recent IRS rules, a taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements under federal law. Please contact me if you would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these new rules.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/8a792a08/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:00:54 +0000
From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] RR ROW
Message-ID:
<DM5PR17MB1628CF85A7F044DA97F40128DCF00 at DM5PR17MB1628.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Chris: A lot of those old railroad right of ways contain reversionary language to the original grantor (presumably your client is a successor) when it ceases to be used as a railroad. If that is not the case; I would try to figure out which railroad currently holds the rights and contact them directly to negotiate a resolution. A guy named Stephen Graddon, who I think is located in South King County, does historical research on railroad titles and he may be able to assist.
[ibdr2]
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 Chris B
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 1:20 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] RR ROW
I have a client whose property encroaches onto an old RR right of way (by which I mean improvements including pavement and a retaining wall). I've quickly looked at some old cases that seem to indicate that one can't adversely possess part of a RR ROW. Does anyone have a contrary view? The cases I've looked at are about 100 years old.
Thanks.
Chris Benis
Hecker, Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S.
321 First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98199
206.447-1900 office - 206.447.9075 fax - heckerwakefield.com<http://harrison-benis.com/>
This message contains information that may be CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail chrisb at heckerwakefield.com<mailto:chrisb at heckerwakefield.com>, and delete this message. Thank you very much.
To comply with recent IRS rules, we must inform you that this message, if it contains advice relating to federal taxes, was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Under recent IRS rules, a taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements under federal law. Please contact me if you would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these new rules.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/2dfa32e1/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/20190710/2dfa32e1/image001-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:06:54 +0000
From: Chris B <chrisb at heckerwakefield.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] RR ROW
Message-ID:
<1BA41B3255EE974D92CD63CA41B8DA9801104B10 at HWFMAIL2.HeckerWakefield.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks Greg, Good to hear from you. I saw your name on the letterhead at IB!
CTB
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Gregory L. Ursich
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:01 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] RR ROW
Chris: A lot of those old railroad right of ways contain reversionary language to the original grantor (presumably your client is a successor) when it ceases to be used as a railroad. If that is not the case; I would try to figure out which railroad currently holds the rights and contact them directly to negotiate a resolution. A guy named Stephen Graddon, who I think is located in South King County, does historical research on railroad titles and he may be able to assist.
[ibdr2]
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> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Chris B
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 1:20 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] RR ROW
I have a client whose property encroaches onto an old RR right of way (by which I mean improvements including pavement and a retaining wall). I've quickly looked at some old cases that seem to indicate that one can't adversely possess part of a RR ROW. Does anyone have a contrary view? The cases I've looked at are about 100 years old.
Thanks.
Chris Benis
Hecker, Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S.
321 First Avenue, Seattle, WA 98199
206.447-1900 office - 206.447.9075 fax - heckerwakefield.com<http://harrison-benis.com/>
This message contains information that may be CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail chrisb at heckerwakefield.com<mailto:chrisb at heckerwakefield.com>, and delete this message. Thank you very much.
To comply with recent IRS rules, we must inform you that this message, if it contains advice relating to federal taxes, was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Under recent IRS rules, a taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements under federal law. Please contact me if you would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these new rules.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/4317f665/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/20190710/4317f665/image001-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:12:18 -0700
From: "Rick Hoss" <rhoss at hctc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide
disclosure under RCW 18.27.114?
Message-ID: <004d01d53764$27dfbfd0$779f3f70$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Daniel is right as usual. If someone calls, the area L&I construction
compliance inspector will issue the contractor a $500 infraction citation
for a violation of the RCW 18.27.114 Notice to Customer. Smart contractors
put this Notice right in their contracts, together with the RCW 64.50 Notice
of Claim that requires 45 days notice and opportunity to cure before a
lawsuit can be filed. So your contractor client may not be able to file a
lien but you can still help improve their contract forms.
Even with lien rights preserved first check the property title to make sure
any lien position is economically viable. Smart suppliers and builders
document the earliest start work or start delivering material dates to
improve their lien position in the event it becomes necessary. So your
contractor can use new forms and new procedures to improve its position for
future projects and foreclosing the lien is required. One area building
supplier documents delivery of a few sticks of lumber to the project site
long before the material package is delivered - liens relate back to date of
first delivery or first work.
RCW 18.27.350 <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.27.350>
Violations-Consumer Protection Act.
The consumers of this state have a right to be protected from unfair or
deceptive acts or practices when they enter into contracts with contractors.
The fact that a contractor is found to have committed a misdemeanor or
infraction under this chapter shall be deemed to affect the public interest
and shall constitute a violation of chapter 19.86
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86> RCW. The surety bond
shall not be liable for monetary penalties or violations of chapter 19.86
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86> RCW.
See also RCW 18.27.005
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.27.005> Strict
enforcement.
This chapter shall be strictly enforced. Therefore, the doctrine of
substantial compliance shall not be used by the department in the
application and construction of this chapter. Anyone engaged in the
activities of a contractor is presumed to know the requirements of this
chapter.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Berner
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:38 AM
To: wsbarp
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure
under RCW 18.27.114?
David,
Yes, failure to provide the notice to customer document is a fatal flaw to a
lien claim unless one of the exceptions found in RCW 18.27.114 applies.
Further, if a claim of lien is recorded without providing the notice to
customer document, then the lien claimant is susceptible to a frivolous lien
motion and also constitutes a per se violation of the consumer protection
act which both allow for an award of attorney fees and costs.
Best,
Daniel Berner
_____
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
on behalf of David Faber <david at faberfeinson.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:14:41 AM
To: wsbarp
Subject: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure under
RCW 18.27.114?
There is no way to cure the failure to provide a disclosure under RCW
18.27.114 and to recover the right to file a lien under RCW 60.04 after work
has commenced, correct? Reviewing the statute and A.W.R. Constr., Inc. v.
L&I, 152 Wn.App. 479 appears dispositive: if the job does not fall into one
of the exceptions for disclosure under 18.27.114, the failure to provide a
disclosure constitutes a loss of the right to lien by a contractor full
stop, but I want to make absolutely certain that I'm not mistaken in my read
of the statute and case law on point.
Best,
David J. Faber
Faber Feinson PLLC
210 Polk Street, Suite 1
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4110
*** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL. This
communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this
communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate,
or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that
you have received this communication in error, and destroy the copy you
received.***
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/a74ddb59/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:16:49 -0700
From: <michael at westseattleattorney.com>
To: "WSBA Real Property Listserv" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] RR ROW
Message-ID:
<20190710141649.c4dc0bb2a322ec24c6317f4bf97284a6.700c62ede8.wbe at email21.godaddy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/d515c9d1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sigimg0
Type: image/png
Size: 51981 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/d515c9d1/sigimg0-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:11:58 -0700
From: Craig Blackmon <craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com>
To: WSBA Real Property List Serve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Referral, please: Unexpected foreclosure of 2nd
Message-ID:
<CAG1D8uYCMFK+rkMrve6YrjDSxOrdOo7ug70yw5qp-K0EhvaSbA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
'Mates, PC called with matter outside my scope. Nine years ago they filed
Chapter 7. At that time they thought this also resolved the second mortgage
on their home. Of course, no such luck. Yesterday they receive a notice of
intent to foreclose. Debt is about $120k, a substantial sum. BK attorney
has retired to HI.
I believe they need someone to at least spend a little time counseling them
about their options -- and I already prep'ed him, likely none of them are
very good. But given the amount at issue....
I will forward all names. Thanks.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/7014b645/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 22:32:25 +0000
From: Kate Love <KateL at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Referral, please: Unexpected foreclosure of 2nd
Message-ID:
<DM5PR16MB14680ED5ED25420E05685138F3F00 at DM5PR16MB1468.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Craig, I worked with foreclosures, mortgage & collections for a number of years and have advised quite a few clients on issues like this one. Thanks, Kate
Kate F. Love
WSBA No. 51314
Hawkes Law Firm P.S.
main line 206 367 5000
fax line 206 367 4005
katel at law-hawks.com<mailto:katel at law-hawks.com>
www.hawkeslawcenter.com<http://www.hawkeslawcenter.com/>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Craig Blackmon
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 3:12 PM
To: WSBA Real Property List Serve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Referral, please: Unexpected foreclosure of 2nd
'Mates, PC called with matter outside my scope. Nine years ago they filed Chapter 7. At that time they thought this also resolved the second mortgage on their home. Of course, no such luck. Yesterday they receive a notice of intent to foreclose. Debt is about $120k, a substantial sum. BK attorney has retired to HI.
I believe they need someone to at least spend a little time counseling them about their options -- and I already prep'ed him, likely none of them are very good. But given the amount at issue....
I will forward all names. Thanks.
Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
Seattle Real Estate Lawyer<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
Seattle WA 98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949 Fax: (206) 770-7328
@LawyerBroker<https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
How to Buy Without an Agent<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent> | How to Sell FSBO<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO> | RE Glossary<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged nature. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/31b135b3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:48:54 -0700
From: "Jeff Davis" <jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide
disclosure under RCW 18.27.114?
Message-ID: <00a601d53771$a72e9e20$f58bda60$@bellanddavispllc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is a good discussion as I have seen more claims against contractors for
not providing the required notices, even though I do not see where the home
owners have been damaged when the notices are not given, especially under
RCW 18.27.114 as the contractor can't lien. In discussing RCW 18.27.350,
Division III ruled "this language requires a determination in a prior
criminal prosecution or infraction proceeding before it can be asserted as a
per se CPA violation. Taylor v. Calene, No. 31917-2-III (Wn. App. January
29, 2019). I have not had a contractor client cited by L & I but, finally,
with this and other cases, the contractors are finally starting to
incorporate the required notices.
Jeff Davis
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of Rick Hoss
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:12 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure
under RCW 18.27.114?
Daniel is right as usual. If someone calls, the area L&I construction
compliance inspector will issue the contractor a $500 infraction citation
for a violation of the RCW 18.27.114 Notice to Customer. Smart contractors
put this Notice right in their contracts, together with the RCW 64.50 Notice
of Claim that requires 45 days notice and opportunity to cure before a
lawsuit can be filed. So your contractor client may not be able to file a
lien but you can still help improve their contract forms.
Even with lien rights preserved first check the property title to make sure
any lien position is economically viable. Smart suppliers and builders
document the earliest start work or start delivering material dates to
improve their lien position in the event it becomes necessary. So your
contractor can use new forms and new procedures to improve its position for
future projects and foreclosing the lien is required. One area building
supplier documents delivery of a few sticks of lumber to the project site
long before the material package is delivered - liens relate back to date of
first delivery or first work.
RCW 18.27.350 <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.27.350>
Violations-Consumer Protection Act.
The consumers of this state have a right to be protected from unfair or
deceptive acts or practices when they enter into contracts with contractors.
The fact that a contractor is found to have committed a misdemeanor or
infraction under this chapter shall be deemed to affect the public interest
and shall constitute a violation of chapter 19.86
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86> RCW. The surety bond
shall not be liable for monetary penalties or violations of chapter 19.86
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86> RCW.
See also RCW 18.27.005
<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.27.005> Strict
enforcement.
This chapter shall be strictly enforced. Therefore, the doctrine of
substantial compliance shall not be used by the department in the
application and construction of this chapter. Anyone engaged in the
activities of a contractor is presumed to know the requirements of this
chapter.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Berner
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:38 AM
To: wsbarp
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure
under RCW 18.27.114?
David,
Yes, failure to provide the notice to customer document is a fatal flaw to a
lien claim unless one of the exceptions found in RCW 18.27.114 applies.
Further, if a claim of lien is recorded without providing the notice to
customer document, then the lien claimant is susceptible to a frivolous lien
motion and also constitutes a per se violation of the consumer protection
act which both allow for an award of attorney fees and costs.
Best,
Daniel Berner
_____
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 David Faber
<david at faberfeinson.com <mailto:david at faberfeinson.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:14:41 AM
To: wsbarp
Subject: [WSBARP] Lien rights: Curing failure to provide disclosure under
RCW 18.27.114?
There is no way to cure the failure to provide a disclosure under RCW
18.27.114 and to recover the right to file a lien under RCW 60.04 after work
has commenced, correct? Reviewing the statute and A.W.R. Constr., Inc. v.
L&I, 152 Wn.App. 479 appears dispositive: if the job does not fall into one
of the exceptions for disclosure under 18.27.114, the failure to provide a
disclosure constitutes a loss of the right to lien by a contractor full
stop, but I want to make absolutely certain that I'm not mistaken in my read
of the statute and case law on point.
Best,
David J. Faber
Faber Feinson PLLC
210 Polk Street, Suite 1
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4110
*** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL. This
communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this
communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate,
or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that
you have received this communication in error, and destroy the copy you
received.***
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190710/09d9d316/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:40:25 -0700
From: <nestor at pplsweb.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Fence Encroachment
Message-ID: <003901d53792$1d95ff20$58c1fd60$@pplsweb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PC's neighbor has an old fence that has been over the PC's property line for
some time. They amicably agreed that neighbor will remove old fence and
build a new fence inside neighbors property. I want to draft an agreement
attaching a recent survey as an exhibit and record the same, where neighbor
agrees to remove fence and neighbor has license to maintain fence
temporarily and thereafter remove the same, and further where neighbor
releases and quitclaims any right to PC's property.
I don't want to call it a Boundary Line Agreement, since we don't want to go
the route of having the surveyor record the Survey and its definitely not a
BL Adjustment.
Can I simply record such an "Agreement" and attach a survey without any
complications from the recording office?
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Washington & Florida
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
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/20190710/34f081a3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:00:46 +0000
From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Fence Encroachment
Message-ID:
<MWHPR11MB1311E2EEA35A254D29C49F28C8F30 at MWHPR11MB1311.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The only way you can do it so it is recognized by the county as a proper division is under RCW 58.04.007 also see if property to be conveyed is subject to mortgage or deed of trust other wise the new parcel will be partially encumbered until it is released also see if there is a judgment lien against the conveyed parcel so need a title report.
Bryce H. Dille | Attorney at Law
Dille Law, PLLC
P: 360-350-0270 | F: 844-210-4503
2010 Caton Way SW, Suite 101
Olympia, Washington 98502
www.dillelaw.com<http://www.dillelaw.com/>
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of nestor at pplsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 7:40 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Fence Encroachment
PC's neighbor has an old fence that has been over the PC's property line for some time. They amicably agreed that neighbor will remove old fence and build a new fence inside neighbors property. I want to draft an agreement attaching a recent survey as an exhibit and record the same, where neighbor agrees to remove fence and neighbor has license to maintain fence temporarily and thereafter remove the same, and further where neighbor releases and quitclaims any right to PC's property.
I don't want to call it a Boundary Line Agreement, since we don't want to go the route of having the surveyor record the Survey and its definitely not a BL Adjustment.
Can I simply record such an "Agreement" and attach a survey without any complications from the recording office?
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Washington & Florida
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
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/20190711/b71dd08d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:37:46 +0000
From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Fence Encroachment
Message-ID: <B36E34C0-6C77-48FF-86DD-535F5EFD63AB at insleebest.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I wouldn?t record that kind of Agreement. I would have a written private settlement and set a date certain by which neighbors agree to remove and relocate fence, and when the fence is moved have the survey revised to reflect fence is located on the boundary or on neighboring property. Then record the revised survey. You can incentivized the neighbors to act quickly by either offering them $500 to comply timely with the agreement, or have a liquidated damages clause where they pay a $1000 penalty if the fence is not removed in time. Also include an attorney fees clause and make agreement enforceable in a subsequent court action if they do not comply. You can also include a term for them to separately sign a quit claim deed to your clients property, given in consideration to resolve a boundary dispute, and record that right away as soon as they sign the deed and settlement agreement. -Greg Ursich, Inslee Best 425-455-1234
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11, 2019, at 9:07 AM, Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com<mailto:Bryce at dillelaw.com>> wrote:
The only way you can do it so it is recognized by the county as a proper division is under RCW 58.04.007 also see if property to be conveyed is subject to mortgage or deed of trust other wise the new parcel will be partially encumbered until it is released also see if there is a judgment lien against the conveyed parcel so need a title report.
Bryce H. Dille | Attorney at Law
Dille Law, PLLC
P: 360-350-0270 | F: 844-210-4503
2010 Caton Way SW, Suite 101
Olympia, Washington 98502
www.dillelaw.com<http://www.dillelaw.com/>
This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s). If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Business Entity Creation and Management
Business, Government and Tax Law
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures
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 nestor at pplsweb.com<mailto:nestor at pplsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 7:40 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Fence Encroachment
PC?s neighbor has an old fence that has been over the PC?s property line for some time. They amicably agreed that neighbor will remove old fence and build a new fence inside neighbors property. I want to draft an agreement attaching a recent survey as an exhibit and record the same, where neighbor agrees to remove fence and neighbor has license to maintain fence temporarily and thereafter remove the same, and further where neighbor releases and quitclaims any right to PC?s property.
I don?t want to call it a Boundary Line Agreement, since we don?t want to go the route of having the surveyor record the Survey and its definitely not a BL Adjustment.
Can I simply record such an ?Agreement? and attach a survey without any complications from the recording office?
Nestor Gorfinkel, Attorney at Law
Licensed in Washington & Florida
Florida Civil-Law (International) Notary
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.
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
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/20190711/9ea54cf7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 58, Issue 9
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190711/8a7e3d62/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list