[WSBARP] Porter v. Kirkendoll

Thu Sep 26 16:24:34 PDT 2019

Here<http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/962146.pdf> it is

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Wilson-Hoss
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:17 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Porter v. Kirkendoll

All the slip opinion says is Porter v. Kirkendoll, Sept. 26, 2019, No. 96214-6.

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
236 West Birch Street
Shelton, WA 98584
360 426-2999
www.hossandwilson-hoss.com<https://r.xdref.com/?id=x8QJRFW2029801&from=wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com&to=j.mccrady@pstitle.com&url=www.hossandwilsonhoss.com>
rob at hctc.com<mailto: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> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 11:36 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Porter v. Kirkendoll

Can you give a cite to the case thanks

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<https://r.xdref.com/?id=x8QJRFW2029801&from=wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com&to=j.mccrady@pstitle.com&url=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 Rob Wilson-Hoss
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 9:59 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Porter v. Kirkendoll

Another rant from me about a Supreme Court case. If you think that practitioners shouldn't criticize court decisions directly in public, then this isn't for you. And it is only really for those who deal with real property timber trespass and waste claims.

Another head scratching decision from the Supreme Court today, Porter v. Kirkendoll. There is much analysis about torts and indemnification and so on, which seems right to me, but the part at the end discusses when the waste statute applies, with its added damages (attorney fees and expert fees, etc.), and when the timber trespass statute applies. Virtually any waste case that I have seen will involve the destruction to or removal of, in the words of the timber trespass statute, "cut down, girdle, or otherwise injure or carry off any tree, timber or shrub... ."  Maybe you have had a waste case that did not involve any of this, but I haven't seen one.

The problem is that the waste statute says that it applies when someone goes onto the property of another and removes timber, crops, etc, or wrongfully causes injury to the land... .But it also says, at the very end, it won't apply when the timber trespass applies.

So, the Supreme Court says that the first part of the waste statute about timber and so on, we just have to ignore that. The result will be that the waste statute is pared back about 95% in many cases.

Except for the first part of the waste statute, the part where it says that it applies to removal of timber, which, again, it decides to ignore,  the Supreme Court said that the two statutes could be reconciled, when each refers to removing timber, by the slightly different language in the timber trespass statute that says "carry off." The decision pretends to make that carry off language apply to all of the actions you can do to a tree, but it is clearly only disjunctive- cut down OR carry off any tree. Nonsense. The result is very difficult for practitioners - if the wrongdoer leaves the trees there, as opposed to carrying off the trees "a distance," then the waste statute applies? What distance? What if the log trucks are loaded when the injunction hits?

They do include in a footnote a reference to not deciding this issue as posed by a footnote in Gunn v. Riely, 185 Wn App 517, 525 n6, at their footnote 10, which is a pretty big issue. So, I guess, the only thing that they are really saying is that if there is no comprehensive property damage that includes damage to property and removal of timber, as Gunn said,  and which hasn't been decided one way or the other by either case, then the issue is, how far did they take the trees?

Saying that this was the intent of the Legislature just makes me say, Really? How about just admitting that the Legislature didn't think very clearly about this and the result is sort of a mess? Or, you could twist things into your conclusion that this is "the legislature's clear intent."

Again, Really?

This was a 9-0 decision.

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
236 West Birch Street
Shelton, WA 98584
360 426-2999
www.hossandwilson-hoss.com<https://r.xdref.com/?id=x8QJRFW2029801&from=wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com&to=j.mccrady@pstitle.com&url=www.hossandwilsonhoss.com>
rob at hctc.com<mailto: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.

________________________________
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D57486.E232FE10]<https://www.avg.com/internet-security>

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com<https://www.avg.com/internet-security>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190926/b17506e4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190926/b17506e4/image001.jpg>