[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 57, Issue 5

Wed Jun 5 15:54:32 PDT 2019

You might also consider that as a basic premise of contract law, that where a contract specifies no time for performance, the law will imply a reasonable time period depending on the circumstances of each case. See Pepper & Tanner, Inc. v Kedo, 13 Wash.App. 433, rev. denied 86 Wash.2d 1003.
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: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 3:28 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 57, Issue 5

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. unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.
      (Kristina Driessen)
  2. Re: unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.
      (Craig Blackmon)
  3. Re: unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.
      (michael at westseattleattorney.com)
  4. Re: unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.
      (Eric Lanza)
  5. Re: unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.
      (Gregory L. Ursich)
  6. Referral in Redmond-Bellevue area Tenants displaced by Fire
      in Redmond, asbestos (michael at westseattleattorney.com)
  7. Re: unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement. (Kate Love)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:40:26 +0000
From: Kristina Driessen <kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.
Message-ID:
    <CY4PR16MB1398560AAF49A474295D0DC3FC160 at CY4PR16MB1398.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I have a purchase and sale agreement dated 1997.  The provision essentially states that the seller will have the ability to re-purchase "improvements' of the property at "some future time." The buyer was to give notice to seller if and when he ever had plans to remove the improvements/home [family home of seller]. The transaction closed.  However, the agreement stated that this provision will

would survive closing.

The property was a home and lot. The value was in the land as it is deemed commercial.  However, the buyer had the full ability to use the home/improvements until he elected to remove to build a commercial structure.

As one would guess the buyer tore the house down with out any notice to seller. This occurred in the last few month.

So we are looking at a situation 12 years post closing.  Thoughts ?..........and/or does the statute of limitations prohibit

Kristina A. Driessen

Attorney at Law

"A" Street Legal Services, Inc. P.S.

16 A Street SE,

Auburn, WA 98002

Office:          253-939-0811

Website:      astreetlegalservices. com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/d85de8b5/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:58:39 -0700
From: Craig Blackmon <craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale
    agreement.
Message-ID:
    <CAG1D8uYp6LGV-HxrrSTieszZLv5X=XNvn76t=s4bdc_mYpBwRA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Interesting!!! And you're right, quite foreseeable.

I see no SOL issue because breach just happened. That said, if the
agreement had no end date, would that violate the Rule Against
Perpetuities? I think the real issue is damages. What financial loss did
your client suffer as a result of the breach?  Absent a liquidated damages
term, I don't think they can recover, notwithstanding the obvious emotional
distress. Not on a breach of contract action, and likely not any tort claim
either.

I hope that helps. I look forward to other thoughts.

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 Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM Kristina Driessen <
kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net> wrote:

> I have a purchase and sale agreement dated 1997.  The provision
> essentially states that the seller will have the ability to re-purchase
> "improvements' of the property at "some future time." The buyer was to give
> notice to seller if and when he ever had plans to remove the
> improvements/home [family home of seller]. The transaction closed.
> However, the agreement stated that this provision will
>
> would survive closing.
>
>
> The property was a home and lot. The value was in the land as it is deemed
> commercial.  However, the buyer had the full ability to use the
> home/improvements until he elected to remove to build a commercial
> structure.
>
>
> As one would guess the buyer tore the house down with out any notice to
> seller. This occurred in the last few month.
>
>
> So we are looking at a situation 12 years post closing.  Thoughts
> ?..........and/or does the statute of limitations prohibit
>
>
> *Kristina A. Driessen*
>
> *Attorney at Law*
>
> *"A" Street Legal Services, Inc. P.S.*
>
> *16 A Street SE, *
>
> *Auburn, WA 98002*
>
> *Office:          253-939-0811*
>
> *Website:      astreetlegalservices. com*
>
>
> ***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/20190605/f87025cf/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 13:10:51 -0700
From: <michael at westseattleattorney.com>
To: "WSBA Real Property Listserv" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale
    agreement.
Message-ID:
    <20190605131051.c4dc0bb2a322ec24c6317f4bf97284a6.c1a4bbb3e0.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/20190605/5901d38d/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/20190605/5901d38d/sigimg0-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:27:17 +0000
From: Eric Lanza <eric at buzzardlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale
    agreement.
Message-ID:
    <MWHPR10MB1600D0F3B665E66CB5719846B2160 at MWHPR10MB1600.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Was the ability to re-purchase improvements phrased as a right of first refusal? Or does it more resemble an option to purchase?

I think the open-endedness of the provision might cause trouble for the other side to enforce it as a valid option to purchase.

Also, all encumbrances/interests in real estate must be by deed per 64.04.010.

If they wanted to make that right enforceable, that right to re-purchase (or a limitation on Buyer?s ability to exercise rights incidental to fee ownership) should have been crafted as a deed restriction or some acknowledged document that reserved seller?s lingering interest in the property (?)

Eric J. Lanza, J.D.

[cid:image001.png at 01D51BA2.642CFEE0]

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Craig Blackmon
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:59 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Interesting!!! And you're right, quite foreseeable.

I see no SOL issue because breach just happened. That said, if the agreement had no end date, would that violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? I think the real issue is damages. What financial loss did your client suffer as a result of the breach?  Absent a liquidated damages term, I don't think they can recover, notwithstanding the obvious emotional distress. Not on a breach of contract action, and likely not any tort claim either.

I hope that helps. I look forward to other thoughts.

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 Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM Kristina Driessen <kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net<mailto:kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net>> wrote:

I have a purchase and sale agreement dated 1997.  The provision essentially states that the seller will have the ability to re-purchase "improvements' of the property at "some future time." The buyer was to give notice to seller if and when he ever had plans to remove the improvements/home [family home of seller]. The transaction closed.  However, the agreement stated that this provision will

would survive closing.

The property was a home and lot. The value was in the land as it is deemed commercial.  However, the buyer had the full ability to use the home/improvements until he elected to remove to build a commercial structure.

As one would guess the buyer tore the house down with out any notice to seller. This occurred in the last few month.

So we are looking at a situation 12 years post closing.  Thoughts ?..........and/or does the statute of limitations prohibit

Kristina A. Driessen

Attorney at Law

"A" Street Legal Services, Inc. P.S.

16 A Street SE,

Auburn, WA 98002

Office:          253-939-0811

Website:      astreetlegalservices. com

***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/20190605/6079b32b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184959 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/6079b32b/image001-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 21:03:17 +0000
From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale
    agreement.
Message-ID:
    <DM5PR1701MB191493808AC8476EDBF529EADC160 at DM5PR1701MB1914.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I agree with Eric.  I think it would only be enforceable if it was explicitly stated in the deed as a restriction or reservation on the land.  Or, it would have to be in another recorded document between buyer and seller with conveyance language.

[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 Eric Lanza
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 1:27 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Was the ability to re-purchase improvements phrased as a right of first refusal? Or does it more resemble an option to purchase?

I think the open-endedness of the provision might cause trouble for the other side to enforce it as a valid option to purchase.

Also, all encumbrances/interests in real estate must be by deed per 64.04.010.

If they wanted to make that right enforceable, that right to re-purchase (or a limitation on Buyer?s ability to exercise rights incidental to fee ownership) should have been crafted as a deed restriction or some acknowledged document that reserved seller?s lingering interest in the property (?)

Eric J. Lanza, J.D.

[cid:image003.png at 01D51BA7.877F6860]

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 Blackmon
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:59 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Interesting!!! And you're right, quite foreseeable.

I see no SOL issue because breach just happened. That said, if the agreement had no end date, would that violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? I think the real issue is damages. What financial loss did your client suffer as a result of the breach?  Absent a liquidated damages term, I don't think they can recover, notwithstanding the obvious emotional distress. Not on a breach of contract action, and likely not any tort claim either.

I hope that helps. I look forward to other thoughts.

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 Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM Kristina Driessen <kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net<mailto:kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net>> wrote:

I have a purchase and sale agreement dated 1997.  The provision essentially states that the seller will have the ability to re-purchase "improvements' of the property at "some future time." The buyer was to give notice to seller if and when he ever had plans to remove the improvements/home [family home of seller]. The transaction closed.  However, the agreement stated that this provision will

would survive closing.

The property was a home and lot. The value was in the land as it is deemed commercial.  However, the buyer had the full ability to use the home/improvements until he elected to remove to build a commercial structure.

As one would guess the buyer tore the house down with out any notice to seller. This occurred in the last few month.

So we are looking at a situation 12 years post closing.  Thoughts ?..........and/or does the statute of limitations prohibit

Kristina A. Driessen

Attorney at Law

"A" Street Legal Services, Inc. P.S.

16 A Street SE,

Auburn, WA 98002

Office:          253-939-0811

Website:      astreetlegalservices. com

***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/20190605/723a8a67/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2843 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/723a8a67/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184959 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/723a8a67/image003-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 15:20:14 -0700
From: <michael at westseattleattorney.com>
To: "WSBA Real Property List" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Referral in Redmond-Bellevue area Tenants displaced
    by Fire in Redmond, asbestos
Message-ID:
    <20190605152014.c4dc0bb2a322ec24c6317f4bf97284a6.a40e710ef0.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/20190605/08964340/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/20190605/08964340/sigimg0-0001.png>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 22:28:33 +0000
From: Kate Love <KateL at law-hawks.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale
    agreement.
Message-ID:
    <MWHPR16MB1870F745C87499B0F5786B92F3160 at MWHPR16MB1870.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Isn?t there is a doctrine of merger, that any guarantees made in the contract but not in the deed are extinguished when the conveyance occurs to the buyer ?

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Gregory L. Ursich
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 2:03 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

I agree with Eric.  I think it would only be enforceable if it was explicitly stated in the deed as a restriction or reservation on the land.  Or, it would have to be in another recorded document between buyer and seller with conveyance language.

[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 Eric Lanza
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 1:27 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Was the ability to re-purchase improvements phrased as a right of first refusal? Or does it more resemble an option to purchase?

I think the open-endedness of the provision might cause trouble for the other side to enforce it as a valid option to purchase.

Also, all encumbrances/interests in real estate must be by deed per 64.04.010.

If they wanted to make that right enforceable, that right to re-purchase (or a limitation on Buyer?s ability to exercise rights incidental to fee ownership) should have been crafted as a deed restriction or some acknowledged document that reserved seller?s lingering interest in the property (?)

Eric J. Lanza, J.D.

[cid:image002.png at 01D51BB3.557C8EE0]

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 Blackmon
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 12:59 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unique provision of a purchase and sale agreement.

Interesting!!! And you're right, quite foreseeable.

I see no SOL issue because breach just happened. That said, if the agreement had no end date, would that violate the Rule Against Perpetuities? I think the real issue is damages. What financial loss did your client suffer as a result of the breach?  Absent a liquidated damages term, I don't think they can recover, notwithstanding the obvious emotional distress. Not on a breach of contract action, and likely not any tort claim either.

I hope that helps. I look forward to other thoughts.

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 Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM Kristina Driessen <kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net<mailto:kristina at rdattys.comcastbiz.net>> wrote:

I have a purchase and sale agreement dated 1997.  The provision essentially states that the seller will have the ability to re-purchase "improvements' of the property at "some future time." The buyer was to give notice to seller if and when he ever had plans to remove the improvements/home [family home of seller]. The transaction closed.  However, the agreement stated that this provision will

would survive closing.

The property was a home and lot. The value was in the land as it is deemed commercial.  However, the buyer had the full ability to use the home/improvements until he elected to remove to build a commercial structure.

As one would guess the buyer tore the house down with out any notice to seller. This occurred in the last few month.

So we are looking at a situation 12 years post closing.  Thoughts ?..........and/or does the statute of limitations prohibit

Kristina A. Driessen

Attorney at Law

"A" Street Legal Services, Inc. P.S.

16 A Street SE,

Auburn, WA 98002

Office:          253-939-0811

Website:      astreetlegalservices. com

***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/20190605/85dacb05/attachment.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/20190605/85dacb05/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184959 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/85dacb05/image002.png>

------------------------------

***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 57, Issue 5
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190605/3349279c/attachment.html>