[WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Mon Dec 21 09:33:02 PST 2020

State funding for mediation thru the Eviction Resolution Program lapses on
December 31, 2020.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/index.cfm?fa=newsinfo.EvictionResolutionProgram

The Supreme Court planned as though the eviction moratorium would lapse in
June and the mediation process with work through be completed by December
31.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Kaitlyn Jackson
*Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2020 9:04 AM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Hi all -

Sorry for the long post and there’s probably a few typos as this is coming
from my phone. These are some of my thoughts on this topic after a weekend
of fielding emails about the “expiration” of the moratorium.

There has pretty much always (at least for the last few years I’ve been
practicing) been funds for low income tenants to access if they were behind
in rent and at risk of being evicted (at least this is true in King and
Pierce County). The process has been that once a 14 day notice to pay or
vacate is served on the tenant, they can take the notice to the Housing
Justice Program or Northwest Justice Project (information of these entities
provided on Page 1 of the Summons if a lawsuit is served), and these
entities hook them up with nonprofits who can “reinstate” their tenancy by
paying the balance. Under RCW 59.18, the landlord is required to reinstate
their tenancy if the balance is paid within 5 days of a judgment. Right
now, because 14 day notices nor lawsuits can be served, I don’t think
either party can access those funds. I think there’s a condition-precedent
to qualify which is either a 14 day or a lawsuit. Maybe someone with more
information on those requirements can comment. One idea I have is to
increase the income limits on these funds to get them in the hands of more
tenants where needed.

The CARES Funds which have been in the hands of some of the non-profits or
similar entities seems to only be accessible by the tenant/defendant (I’ve
dealt with a few of them). So the landlord can’t really apply or push a
tenant to apply. Yes they can send the info to the tenant - but they can’t
force anything to move forward. Also, I think the conditions on some or
most of these funds is that the tenant show COVID affected their income. So
many non-paying tenants aren’t applying for the aid, which exacerbates the
problem, because then the landlord is stuck. Moreover, the CARES funds are
limited in how much or what they will pay. For example, many of my cases
have scenarios where the tenants have not paid utilities since April. So
the CARES Act funds will only cover part of that. Also, the CARES Act funds
will only cover X number of unpaid months. In a case where the landlord
hasn’t received rent (not event a partial payment) in 10 months, it’s a
pretty tough sell to the landlord to accept 3-4 months worth only to be
required to waive the remaining amounts and be required to extend the lease
of the tenant (who is not very likely not pay moving forward, either).

The biggest issue right now, in my opinion, is that the tenants are not
required to take any proactive steps at all to get the ball rolling on a
resolution. They are not required to make partial payments or even engage
with the landlord in a reasonable repayment plan. They are encouraged to do
so, yes, but if they do not - the landlords are essentially at their mercy
while the tenant holds their most valuable asset is an economic hostage
situation. For large landlords, that’s an overly-dramatic picture. For
small landlords, that’s exactly how this looks and feels - particular those
who are at risk of being foreclosed upon due to the tenant refusing to help
themselves gain access to CARES or state funds or vacate the property.

Personally, I think the required mediation program is a reasonable solution
to getting the parties to the negotiation table and moving things forward.
But things do need to move forward. The longer we allow no proof or action
by the tenants, the worse the problem will get and then the threat of mass
evictions is actually a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’ve had many thoughtful
debates with attorneys and laymen alike and there’s a push to oppose the
narrative that a large portion of the non-paying tenants are abusing the
protections. Well, if that’s true, then allowing landlords the right to
start the process of mediation should not create a threat of “mass
evictions.” If the tenants can show they’ve been effected by COVID, if
they’ve communicated with their landlord, then the process should lead to
access to CARES and other state/non-profit funds and a resolution between
the parties. Then, logic follows that we will only have “mass evictions” if
there’s been “mass abuse.”  All these cases just keep piling up because
there is no requirement for turning on the spout to relieve pressure. It
reminds me of Cold Mountain where Ruby Thewes famously played on screen by
Renee Zelwegger quotes “they made the weather and then stand in the rain
and say sh*t, it’s rainin!” I only hope there are enough mediators to
process the work in a timely fashion (I have my doubts).

I don’t think we need the proposed amendments to RCW 59.18. I think we need
to see what/how the required mediation program does to help alleviate the
flow of cases (I think many could resolve amicably through this process).
But, we won’t know if that’s effective until we give some rebalance of
power to the landlord to move things forward and we give these programs
time to work out their kinks.

Kaitlyn

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Jim Doran <jim at doranlegal.com> wrote:

In my years as Mayor of my home town (Twisp) I found that if a person is
very clear and determined to get what his/her constituents need, there is
always a way to get it.  Who is going to do the work with drive, passion
and determination are the only questions.

We have an outline for what is needed.  Some of the administrative
structure is already in place, eg Section 8, and the money is there.  Who
is going to make this happen?

Jim Doran

PS.  Someone send this to Governor Inslee.  I don't have a direct line.

James R. Doran

Attorney at Law

100 E. Pine Street -  Suite 205

Bellingham, WA 98225
(360)393-9506

jim at doranlegal.com

www.doranlegal.com

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 7:51 AM <scott at scottgthomaslaw.com> wrote:

Perhaps the bigger question is what is squirreled away in the new stimulus
bill?  At one point there was $25B to state and local governments to pay
for rent and utilities.  If that made it into the final bill, asking the
legislature to double Washington’s share to get landlords and tenants past
the next 6 months would seem to be in the interest of both.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Jim Doran
*Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2020 6:34 AM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Who is going to pitch this  To the the Governor?

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 8:07 PM <scott at scottgthomaslaw.com> wrote:

With respect, I point out that Section 8 housing is known, accepted, and
there is a lot of infrastructure already in place.  Local service agencies
are familiar with it, and able to provide tenants with assistance.  A
temporary expansion would be quick and relatively easy.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Eric Nelsen
*Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2020 2:48 PM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Jim, I think that could be a great solution. Personally I would advocate
for putting most of the administrative burden on the landlord, to apply for
relief and work with the tenant to get the tenant’s cooperation in
providing necessary information to provide to the state. The tenant’s
incentive would be that, if they cooperate with the landlord, they get
protection from eviction; otherwise not. (And eviction would be contingent
on showing that landlord made necessary efforts to let tenant know about
the options and gave them reasonable opportunity to take advantage of the
protection.)

I think landlords are better situated than tenants in financial distress,
in terms of resources and time, to deal with the bureaucratic details. Too
many benefit programs fail because they are too complicated or require too
much sustained effort from the intended beneficiary, a person who is in an
unstable and precarious position. Also, there are fewer landlords than
tenants, which would reduce the state’s administrative burden because the
bigger landlords would, through repetition, get proficient at providing
exactly the right information in a format that makes it easier for the
state to confirm. Plus, the payments would go to the landlord so the
landlord has to be in touch with the state anyway.

I can imagine some privacy issues cropping up, for tenants giving info to
landlords, so it might take some tweaking. And perhaps tenants could apply
themselves if they wished, if the landlord isn’t cooperative.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen

Sayre Law Offices, PLLC

1417 31st Ave South
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>

Seattle WA 98144-3909
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>

206-625-0092

eric at sayrelawoffices.com

*Covid-19 Update - *All attorneys are working remotely during regular
business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing
also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed
and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and
deliveries to the Seattle office.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Jim Doran
*Sent:* Saturday, December 19, 2020 1:09 PM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Wow.  what a brilliant string of thoughts.  One of you, buried down the
string quite a ways, articulated what I would call the best analysis.  I
would like to add just a bit.

The brilliant one said, and I am paraphrasing, that one of the purposes of
the federal government in times like these is to step up to help.  In this
case that would have (and probably still could) meant that a landlord -
tenant relief bill be adopted until the end of the pandemic.  If a tenant
could show that he/she was financially disadvantaged because of the Covid
and filled out the paperwork, then the tenant's rent would be paid directly
to the landlord.  If the tenant did not qualify or simply did not take the
time and effort to fill out the forms and go to the interview, then the
regular rules of unlawful detainer would apply.  Pretty simple.  There are
details, of course.

Yes, this would create another layer of bureaucracy at the state level and
would take some time to set up.  An interim forbearance could be allowed.
However, this landlord - tenant relief bill is better than all the terrible
predictions that have been brought up in this email discussion.  I believe
the harm will be very substantial if a process like this is not developed
and implemented.

Why wasn't it developed and implemented?  (Or, where does the real fault
lie?)  If the federal government had addressed the Covid pandemic in a
professional way, the need for the landlord - tenant relief bill would have
been vetted and most likely funded by a significant fund to the individual
states for the purposes stated.  But, as we know, the President didn't step
up.  The real core of this problem is failed leadership at the top.

I appreciate all of the comments, even the two from Voltaire.  But I would
like whoever it was who had this brilliant idea to step forward and be
recognized.  It is the only real solution to this situation.  I have said
many times, "I may not ever have a creative idea, but I sure do recognize
one when I hear it."

Thank you all for the focus on this.  Are we going to try to outlast the
Covid....for another 8 months... or try to get something like this from the
Biden Administration?  That's the question now.

James Doran

James R. Doran

Attorney at Law

100 E. Pine Street -
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/E.+Pine+Street+-+Suite+205+Bellingham,+WA+98225?entry=gmail&source=g>
Suite 205
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/E.+Pine+Street+-+Suite+205+Bellingham,+WA+98225?entry=gmail&source=g>

Bellingham, WA 98225
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/E.+Pine+Street+-+Suite+205+Bellingham,+WA+98225?entry=gmail&source=g>
(360)393-9506

jim at doranlegal.com

www.doranlegal.com

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:39 AM Lenard Wittlake <lwlaw at my180.net> wrote:

Mr. Long is correct, imho.  He is not talking about removing landlords from
their homes.  He is talking about the government taking control of
dwellings away from the landlord owners.  That is expropriation of
dwellings, even if temporarily.

As for mob rule, that *was* a concern of the founders (we were pretty much
started by disfavored minorities that fled slaughter in other places) and
that is relevant in analyzing the use of emergency powers which has
stripped away all of the protections mentioned.  The pandemic is the reason
for invoking emergency powers.  The problem under discussion is the way the
powers are used, who benefits and who pays. So I have an opinion about why
a politician would choose to lay the burden on landlords instead of broader
society.  At least these days no one gets killed over differences of
opinion …. oh, wait..

There are valid points and concerns on the right and the left.  But our
society seems to not care about coming to a consensus that works for more
than a mere majority (I live in OR where Portland can outvote the rest of
the state).  But our system has worked better than most others, until
emergency powers are used based on politics instead of rational analysis
and problem solving.  That Canadian idea someone mentioned makes sense to
me.

Lenard L Wittlake, PLLC

Attorney & Counselor at Law

22 East Poplar Street, Suite 202
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/22+East+Poplar+Street,+Suite+202?entry=gmail&source=g>

P.O. Box 1233

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 529-1529 voice

(509) 850-3515 fax

www.lwattorney.com

Lenard at wittlakelaw.com

The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential or

otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you received this email in error,

please reply to the sender that you have received this information in error

and delete this email.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:
wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Nelsen
*Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2020 10:08 AM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Life tenure for federal judges, the apportionment of the US Senate, and the
electoral college, being the antimajoritarian aspects of the structure of
federal government, don’t seem relevant to this Washington state
discussion. The Washington State bicameral legislature is proportionally
representative in both houses and operates by majority rule in both houses.
Our judges are elected at every level all the way up to the Supreme Court.
I don’t think any of that has changed since the state was founded in 1889.

I suppose a judiciary can be considered to some extent “antimajoritarian”
simply by its existence, in that rule of law helps prevent mob rule and
re-channels efforts to change the law to the legislative process. But a
judiciary is also upholding the laws enacted by the legislature, which is
basically a pro-majoritarian function.

Hairsplitting about Constitutional Republic versus Representative Democracy
doesn’t change the fact that self-governance, by either structure, involves
consent of all to abide by the collective decision of the government. That
is, by definition, rule of law.

So if our self-governmental process--the state legislature--changes the
legal landscape in a way that prioritizes life or liberty over certain
property rights, that is not tyranny just because one might disagree with
the decision. A lawyer who stands against that process would be, by
definition, *opposing* the rule of law.

None of which means a lawyer can’t fiercely advocate for a change in the
law, or argue regulatory taking or whatever. But that’s not an
“antimajoritarian” role for lawyers as a group; that’s individual advocacy
within the law.

It’s incoherent to argue that “rule of law” prevents the legislature from
changing the law. If one doesn’t like the change, one is simply arguing for
the status quo. Of course one has a right to do so; but it does not make
that person a righteous defender of rule of law, or a principled
antimajoritarian. It’s just a political position, and win or lose the
legislative battle, I would expect compliance with the law.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen

Sayre Law Offices, PLLC

1417 31st Ave South
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>

Seattle WA 98144-3909
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>

206-625-0092

eric at sayrelawoffices.com

*Covid-19 Update - *All attorneys are working remotely during regular
business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing
also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed
and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and
deliveries to the Seattle office.

*From:* K. Garl Long <Garl at longlaw.biz>
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:50 PM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>; Eric Nelsen <
eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

Our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not an absolute
Democracy. We did this to avoid the institution of tyranny by the
majority.  We did this to protect the minority, to assure that each person,
would have the inalienable right live life in liberty, to pursue happiness
without fearing deprivation by the majority.

It is true that our constitutions have been much weakened, it may be that
this will continue until the majority can trample unfettered on the rights
of disfavored groups; it will most certainly occur if lawyers do not stand
for the rule of law, especially against the majority.

KGL

On 12/17/2020 05:34 PM, Eric Nelsen wrote:

It would be good for some real property lawyers to be involved in further
discussions of the moratoria, and certainly anything as consequential as
legislation.

“Outvoting y’all” is also called majority rule in a democracy. That rests
on the social contract, that for the greater good of all, the minority
agrees to abide by the decision of the majority. There is a flood of
opinionated people in this country right now who appear to have forgotten
that. I would hope that lawyers as a group have not forgotten. If our
legislators change the priorities between property rights and life and
liberty interests, that is how self-governance works.

“Expropriation of dwellings” bollocks. No *landlord* is being removed from
their home. Landlords’ right to use the courts to enforce payment of rent
is being temporarily blocked during a health emergency. The debt remains
owing and there will be a huge financial and legal mess to clean up. But I
think calling it “expropriation of dwellings” is hardly appropriate.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen

Sayre Law Offices, PLLC

1417 31st Ave South
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>

Seattle WA 98144-3909
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/1417+31st+Ave+South+Seattle+WA+98144-3909?entry=gmail&source=g>

206-625-0092

eric at sayrelawoffices.com

*Covid-19 Update - *All attorneys are working remotely during regular
business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing
also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed
and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and
deliveries to the Seattle office.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
<wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On
Behalf Of *Lenard Wittlake
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 4:36 PM
*To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
<wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

So there you have it.  There are enough who “vehemently support” the
“expropriation of dwellings” that they can now outvote y’all, so what do
you expect from politicians?

Since the Governor has not “surgically” addressed the overreach problems in
four iterations of the moratorium, it is not likely going to happen in the
fifth.

It appears to be time for the section to organize an evaluation of the
proposed legislation.  I assume our appointed leaders are working on such.

Lenard L Wittlake, PLLC

Attorney & Counselor at Law

22 East Poplar Street, Suite 202
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/22+East+Poplar+Street,+Suite+202?entry=gmail&source=g>

P.O. Box 1233

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 529-1529 voice

(509) 850-3515 fax

www.lwattorney.com

Lenard at wittlakelaw.com

The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential or

otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you received this email in error,

please reply to the sender that you have received this information in error

and delete this email.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>]
*On Behalf Of *Christy M
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 2:41 PM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

I, for one, do not meekly accept; I vehemently support.

-------- Original message --------

From: "K. Garl Long" <Garl at longlaw.biz>

Date: 12/17/20 2:15 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>

Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

If you choose to put money that you have earned into the pocket of the
owner of a dwelling, in exchange for the privilege of living there, it is
called a contract.

If the government expropriates the dwelling from the owner so that you can
live there without paying, it is theft. You may recall that the Intolerable
Acts included such expropriation of dwellings.  This is what our founders
fought against, and which we now meekly accept.

KGL

On 12/17/2020 01:55 PM, Andrew Hay wrote:

Voltaire again … As far as his notion of government taking money from one
class and giving to another, as a non-landlord, I see my money going to
 the pockets of landlords.  I fund governmental benefits with my taxes.
Those benefits are paid to landlords for rent.  Generally, rent paid to
landlords by those on government benefits is a disproportionately high
percentage of their income.  Voltaire would likely conclude the landlords
are the ones benefitting from this governmental transfer.

Perhaps the moratorium suspends this transfer to landlords to allow my
taxes to temporarily fund pandemic relief.

*Andrew Hay*

Hay & Swann PLLC

201 S. 34th St.

Tacoma, WA 98418

*www.washingtonlaw.net
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonlaw.net%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075055698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DtUXJVBQr9jrfAcs0VP8AjpgaqzovLn11GNixl6v0Ug%3D&reserved=0>*

*andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>*

253.272.2400 (w)

253.377.3085 (c)

THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION AND IS INTENDED FOR THE DESIGNATED
RECIPIENT ONLY.  IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE
NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>]
*On Behalf Of *K. Garl Long
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:34 PM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv; Rob Rowley
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

*It is not inequality which is the real misfortune, it is dependence. *Voltaire
again.

On 12/17/2020 11:25 AM, Rob Rowley wrote:

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as
possible from one class of citizens to give to another.  Voltaire.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Chris B
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 10:59 AM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

I just entered into an agreement to sell 4 of my 12 rental homes as a
package.  All will be town down and replaced with McMansions. These are
nice homes that I am proud to own, two of which have tenants in them for
more than 10 years.  While all my tenants are current in their rent, I no
longer wish to be in the rental housing business in a state that is clearly
trying to kill that business.

As they say, it is “a feature, not a bug.”

Chris Benis

Hecker, Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S.

321 First Avenue West, Seattle, WA
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/321+First+Avenue+West,+Seattle,+WA+98119?entry=gmail&source=g>
98119
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/321+First+Avenue+West,+Seattle,+WA+98119?entry=gmail&source=g>

206.447-1900 office – 206.447.9075 fax – www. heckerwakefield.com
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fheckerwakefield.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075065693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yX6TEYkb2qMyn9cK3xUbOGsIz48aS9fz2uX8r%2FF%2FIxE%3D&reserved=0>

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, 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.

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Rani K. Sampson
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 10:51 AM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

The long-term consequences of forcing landlords to absorb large financial
losses are predictable:  landlords will liquidate their real estate
investments (they’ll sell).  Tenants will have much less housing to choose
from.  Rental houses will be incredibly hard to find.  The void might be
filled by corporate landlords building apartments or government landlords
building projects.

This is very bad for tenants, long term.  The loss of rental housing will
affect all of us.

*Rani K. Sampson*

Overcast Law Offices | Attorney

23 S Wenatchee Ave #320, Wenatchee WA 98801
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/23+S+Wenatchee+Ave+%23320,+Wenatchee+WA+98801?entry=gmail&source=g>
| (509) 663-5588 x 6

*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
*Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2020 10:37 AM
*To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

You're generalizing.  The moratorium protects an entire class regardless of
their need, at the expense of another class, regardless of their need.  If
it were based on economics I'd have little problem with it, but it's not.
Beyond that though, I'm worried about the long term adverse effects on
those who actually need the protection.  The moratorium may have given them
a false sense of security and lead them to make bad decisions.  Back when I
practiced law I did primarily debtor bankruptcy and the moratorium is
likely causing people to make decisions that no competent financial planner
would ever advise them to make.

Also, you can't even assume someone who rents cannot afford to own.  They
may just not wish to own for many different reasons.

Kary L. Krismer

206 723-2148

On 12/17/2020 10:20 AM, Andrew Hay wrote:

I will take the pro moratorium position.  Donning my suit of armor at the
same time…..

This is a time of great economic pain due to a pandemic unequaled by any
health crisis in 100 years.  The moratoriums are a policy protecting the
most vulnerable people in the population as a whole – renters.  As a group
they are either poor or old or both.  They are people who can’t afford
homes due to lack of wealth.

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

<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075065693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w5ED6xDFhAmMVWCiL6c6%2Bgw7HAwBvJmgf397NWn7cGo%3D&reserved=0>

<image001.jpg>
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075065693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=w5ED6xDFhAmMVWCiL6c6%2Bgw7HAwBvJmgf397NWn7cGo%3D&reserved=0>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075075688%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=8CZu5iUGqPapH%2BGiZwr6FWa9U4G1mUXj4O7OMxQYeQs%3D&reserved=0>

***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
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075085687%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FnWFsbwNtQ9wBg79b8%2FWIJIJZLs3z%2B4emU4cvw4FeJM%3D&reserved=0>

***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
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=04%7C01%7C%7C3ad32d5fc4764794e46e08d8a2d935b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637438401075085687%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FnWFsbwNtQ9wBg79b8%2FWIJIJZLs3z%2B4emU4cvw4FeJM%3D&reserved=0>

***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

***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

***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

-- 

James R. Doran

Attorney at Law

100 E. Pine Street -  Suite 205

Bellingham, WA 98225
(360)393-9506

jim at doranlegal.com

www.doranlegal.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

***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

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This e-mail (including any attachments) is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may
contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept
this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines,
imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone;
return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper
and electronic copies. Any settlement offer contained herein is made
pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on
the part of this firm’s client(s) or its agents.  IRS CIRCULAR 230
DISCLAIMER:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20201221/d6f4ff1b/attachment.html>