[WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

[rob at hctc.com]

Roger, I am the first to wonder at much of what happens in Seattle and King County; perhaps reaching out beyond King County would be fruitful. I have over the years been frustrated with the lack of efficiency, for want of a better term, when I have seen something I thought could and should be addressed systemically, but I have also always been impressed with how the local DRC wants to be as good as it can be. 

 

If it is indeed true that all DRCs resist these initiatives because of a territorial sense, or bias in favor of tenants, or for some other reason, then I am wrong. I just haven’t seen anything like that in the one I have been associated with. 

 

Rob 

 

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss

Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP

236 West Birch Street

Shelton, WA 98584

360 426-2999

www.hossandwilson-hoss.com <http://www.hossandwilson-hoss.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.

 

 

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Roger Moss
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:02 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

 

Thank you Robert.

 

The DRCs would have a role to play in a new system, but so far have not shown a willingness to change thinking and practices in connection with eviction prevention, which was overdue before the pandemic.

 

It’s a long story - I’m very familiar with DRC leadership and the current pilot project; they have been unwilling to collaborate with organizations outside their system, even when pushed to do so by funders. That happened in King County last year. 

 

Senior leadership of the WSBA ADR Section not only were instrumental in creating the DRCs, they have always been engaged with policy makers about legislation that create or govern dispute resolution. However that experience has been excluded from discussions about the current eviction mediation program. Why? It’s not really about the DRCs or ADR Section leadership, but about the influence that an advocacy group for one side has exerted on the creation of the current pilot and proposed legislation. 

 

I am a big supporter of community mediation, and with the Covid-19 crisis everyone should be collaborating to find solutions. However, collaboration needs to be inclusive in order to work. Neither the DRCs nor the courts have availed themselves of the full extent of knowledge and experience available in Washington that this moment calls for.

 

Roger A. Moss 

Mediation Counsel
Rincon Resolutions LLC
206.790.1971 Seattle

415.371.9724 San Francisco

RinconRes.org <http://RinconRes.org> 

Confidential Correspondence
The information in this e-mail (including attachments, if any) is considered privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by reply email, delete this email, and do not disclose its contents to anyone.





On Dec 21, 2020, at 11:26 AM, <rob at hctc.com <mailto:rob at hctc.com> > <rob at hctc.com <mailto:rob at hctc.com> > wrote:

 

Roger, I am connected to our local DRC. I can tell you that the state-wide systemic coordination and sharing is not yet perfected, although much good has come of many of their efforts to do so. My sense is that my local DRC would be happy to learn anything it can to help it work within its model. That model emphasizes genuinely neutral mediators, early intervention, and so on. But they are constrained by funding and again, the lack of an entirely efficient way to share best practices with other DRCs. They do have organization, and they very clearly are committed to the mediation model. Uniformly, the many people I have worked with and mediated with over about 20 years are true believers in trying to find a dispute resolution system that is better for everyone involved. 

 

They do have a history of meeting various challenges over the years, and improving their offerings. But these are new challenges. So, if there is a better system, and a way to get to it, I invite you to connect with DRCs and try to help them see what is possible. In Oly, that would be the Thurston County Dispute Resolution Center,  360-956-1155;  <http://mediatethurston.org/> mediatethurston.org. Local DRCs are already established, so, it may be more efficient to work with them than try to create entirely new systems, at least in some locales.

 

Rob

 

 

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss

Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP

236 West Birch Street

Shelton, WA 98584

360 426-2999

 <http://www.hossandwilson-hoss.com/> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com

 <mailto:rob at hctc.com> rob at hctc.com

 

From:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Roger Moss
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 9:31 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv < <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Landlord Question - Next legislative session

 

Short-ish response to Kaitlyn’s thoughtful missive.

 

The current mediation pilot is deeply flawed, mired in 1990s thinking, and flouts a fundamental component of neutral process. While I am not categorically opposed to mandatory mediation, the combination of mandatory process and the role of tenant advocates in case management corrupts the scheme. It is that last element that most alarms the executive committee of the ADR Section.

 

For years we have been calling for new approaches to, and especially early intervention in disputes that could trigger eviction. This could be done state-wide through a centralized online dispute resolution system managed by an impeccably neutral professional organization. Tenants and landlords both need a range of services, from self-help tools, to coaching and social services, and finally to structured mediated process. 

 

It is not terribly expensive to create an operate an appropriate system, but doing so requires a mind-shift that so far neither the courts nor the DRCs have shown any interest in considering. It’s bizarre, since  right across the border (northbound), a single system has been handling all UDs in British Columbia for many years. There are other examples of this kind that have been enormously successful and actually reduce taxpayer expenses. We easily could do this in Washington, but we need to get the attention of the right policy makers.

 

As a reminder, the RPPT and ADR Sections are hosting an open forum at noon on January 6th to engage dialogue on these issues with an eye to influencing legislation under review presently. The January 6 forum will be the first of a series. Please join us!

 

ADR - RPPT Sections Open Forum on Pending Eviction Mediation Legislation

Jan 6, 2021 12:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) 

Register in advance for this meeting:

 <https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwrdOivrj8tHtUdh4DB8pAQ4gd6cmvSWxxz> https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwrdOivrj8tHtUdh4DB8pAQ4gd6cmvSWxxz 

 

Roger A. Moss 

Mediation Counsel
Rincon Resolutions LLC
206.790.1971 Seattle

415.371.9724 San Francisco

 <http://rinconres.org/> RinconRes.org

Confidential Correspondence
The information in this e-mail (including attachments, if any) is considered privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by reply email, delete this email, and do not disclose its contents to anyone.






On Dec 21, 2020, at 9:03 AM, Kaitlyn Jackson < <mailto:kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com> kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com> wrote:

 

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 < <mailto:jim at doranlegal.com> 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

 <mailto:jim at doranlegal.com> jim at doranlegal.com

 <http://www.doranlegal.com/> www.doranlegal.com

 

 

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 7:51 AM < <mailto:scott at scottgthomaslaw.com> 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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < <mailto: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 < <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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 < <mailto:scott at scottgthomaslaw.com> 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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < <mailto: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 < <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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

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

206-625-0092

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

 <mailto:jim at doranlegal.com> jim at doranlegal.com

 <http://www.doranlegal.com/> www.doranlegal.com

 

 

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

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

P.O. Box 1233

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 529-1529 voice

(509) 850-3515 fax

 <http://www.lwattorney.com/> www.lwattorney.com

 <mailto:Lenard at wittlakelaw.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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto: <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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

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

206-625-0092

 <mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com> 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 < <mailto:Garl at longlaw.biz> Garl at longlaw.biz> 
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:50 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv < <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>; Eric Nelsen < <mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com> 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

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

206-625-0092

 <mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com> 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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com  <mailto: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'  <mailto: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

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

P.O. Box 1233

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 529-1529 voice

(509) 850-3515 fax

 <http://www.lwattorney.com/> www.lwattorney.com

 <mailto:Lenard at wittlakelaw.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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [ <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> mailto: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" < <mailto:Garl at longlaw.biz> Garl at longlaw.biz> 

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

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

 <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> www.washingtonlaw.net

 <mailto: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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [ <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> mailto: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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < <mailto: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 < <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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.

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

206.447-1900 office – 206.447.9075 fax – www.  <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> heckerwakefield.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  <mailto:chrisb at heckerwakefield.com> 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:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < <mailto: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 < <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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

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

 

From:  <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com < <mailto: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:  <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 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>


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
 <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> www.avast.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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <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> 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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <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> 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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> 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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> 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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> 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

 <mailto:jim at doranlegal.com> jim at doranlegal.com

 <http://www.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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> 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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> 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. 
***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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> 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
 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20201221/748a668b/attachment.html>