[WSBARP] renter restrictions

Fri May 3 15:27:35 PDT 2019

Hi, Bryce. Start by looking for any language about the common areas are for
the use and benefit of the owners, or the use of the owners. If not in the
restrictive covenants, look at the contemporaneous (hopefully) Articles of
Incorporation, Bylaws and so on. It is often found there. The general rule
is that these are all correlated documents, best recent case is Roats v.
Blakely, 169 Wash 2d, which reviews where the doctrine came from. This
works, in theory, even if they were not contemporaneous. 

Of course, there are still issues - some say use of the owners, some say use
and benefit of the owners. Does "benefit" mean, they can let their kids and
guests go to their picnics, or just the people who are actually on title? Or
does it mean something broader, such as, it is a benefit to the owners to be
able to have their renters use the common areas?

If it is a question of, what does this language mean, then you think about
the right of an owner's association to interpret its own documents, which
seems to mean both construction and interpretation, the only really good
case that was reported was Parker Estates v. Pattison, 198 Wash App 16:

1415¶28 We afford great deference to an organization's interpretation of its
Bylaws and will only invalidate an interpretation if it is arbitrary and
unreasonable. Davis v. Pleasant Forest Camping Club, noted at 171 Wash.App.
1027 (2012), 2012 WL 5397988, at *3 (unpublished) (citing **488 Couie v.
Local Union No. 1849 United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 51 Wash.2d
108, 115, 316 P.2d 473 (1957)). If an organization's rules are conflicting
and confusing, we are more likely to find its interpretation neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable. Anderson v. Enter. Lodge No. 2, 80 Wash.App. 41,
47, 906 P.2d 962 (1995).

Parker Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Pattison, 198 Wash. App. 16, 28, 391 P.3d
481, 487–88 (2016).

See, the problem from Chiwawa was that there was a provision about rentals
in the covenants - limitation on signs. From that, the Supremes found AS A
MATTER OF LAW that this meant that the drafters picked the only restriction
on rentals that they wanted and therefore they wanted no other restrictions.
Yeah, right. 

You don't have that problem, though, since there is nothing in your client's
covenants that talks about it at all.

Then you have RCW 64.38.020, the powers of HOAs, and even though the
appellate courts often pretend it does not exist, it does, and it says that
an association can  "regulate the use, manintenance, repair, replacement,
and modification of common areas." This should be good enough if you don't
have anything in any of your documents. 

That should get you started.

Now go home and enjoy the sunshine.

rob

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss 
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP 
236 West Birch Street 
Shelton, WA 98584 
360 426-2999

www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
 <mailto:rob at hctc.com> rob at hctc.com

This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified
that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us by
reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed above)
and immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments.
Thank you.

This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to
collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.  To
the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692)
applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the
condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to
it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have
the right to seek advice of legal counsel.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 2:40 PM
To: 'wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com'
Subject: [WSBARP] renter restrictions

In a older HOA the CC and Rs were silent as to restrictions on use  of
common facilities and made no mention of rentors however to discourage
renting the association recently  passed a bylaw which states that only
owners can use the common facilities such as pool etc and specifically
prohibits rentors even though owner of lot still has to pay assessments for
common facility maintenance. Does this type of restriction need to be by
amendments to CC and Rs  since it doesn’t prohibit renting only use of
common facilities by tenants Thanks for you input.

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

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190503/2d5a32dd/attachment.html>