[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 66, Issue 26
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Tue Mar 31 13:50:29 PDT 2020
The governor's proclamation(number 20-9) only applies to residential evictions. While you can not issue a 20 day notice presently, the prohibition against law enforcement only applies to failure to pay rent situations. In other words, if you issued a 20 day notice prior to March 18, the court and the sheriff can act on it. It seems to me that if the sheriff refuses to act on it, then they are violating a directive of the court. I am not sure what the remedy is. Part of the problem may also be, can you get a show cause date. Some counties are not holding hearings except in certain limited circumstances. A judge might also defer since he or she could perceive that it would violate the governor's stay at home directive to essentially force someone to go out and look for new housing.
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave.Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885
swhite8893 at aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2020 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 66, Issue 26
Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the
mountains (Kaitlyn Jackson)
2. Re: PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the
mountains (Jenny Ling)
3. Commercial Evictions (Timothy Lehr)
4. Re: Commercial Evictions (Douglas Scott)
5. PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the
mountains (Laird, Katherine)
6. Stay on all residential evictions (Synthia Melton)
7. Re: Stay on all residential evictions (Eric Nelsen)
8. Pierce County commercial evictions (Douglas Scott)
9. HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard (Paul Neumiller)
10. Re: HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard (Bryce Dille)
11. Re: HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard (Paul Neumiller)
12. Re: PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the
mountains (Gregory L. Ursich)
13. Re: HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard (Inge Fordham)
14. Re: HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard (Paul Neumiller)
15. Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission period
after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property
disclosure statement? (Rod Harmon)
16. Snohomish County (Rod Harmon)
17. Re: Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission period
after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property
disclosure statement? (Kary Krismer)
18. Re: Pierce County commercial evictions (Josh Grant)
19. Re: Pierce County commercial evictions (Rob Rowley)
20. Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission period
after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property
disclosure statement? (Rod Harmon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:07:43 -0700
From: Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the
mountains
Message-ID:
<CAO+NF_7vnA4heEgN733PvvoggEDj134HLoiU5hfGfAEybCchKA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello Brain Trust -
I have a good friend who has reached out to me regarding about 80 acres of
undeveloped land he owns near Leavenworth. He's having a dispute about
easements for ingress and egress with a neighbor. I know things are done a
little differently over there - so I don't think I'm the right fit for
helping this friend out.
Does anyone have any referrals for local attorneys in that area who handle
this kind of issue? Self-referrals welcome!
--
Thank you,
Kaitlyn R. Jackson | Attorney| DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: *206.973.3500 *| f: *206.577.5090*| e: *kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com*|
www.dimensionlaw.com
--
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/20200330/83d1c576/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jenny Ling <jenny at jennylinglaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of
the mountains
Message-ID: <587229399.408928.1585603289750 at mailbusiness.ionos.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/7ff98b5b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18161 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/7ff98b5b/attachment-0001.jpe>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:43:39 -0700
From: "Timothy Lehr" <timothy at stileslaw.com>
To: <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Commercial Evictions
Message-ID: <002e01d606dc$470e4e60$d52aeb20$@stileslaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
All,
My thought is commercial evictions are not included in the Governor's
moratorium on evictions in general. Is that right? Also, if one wanted to
proceed with a commercial eviction, I'm hesitant to tell our local superior
court that it is an "emergent case", as the court is requesting any new
hearings amount to. My client views it as an emergency of course, but there
is no health or safety risk involved.
Wondering how other LL attorneys are approaching these issues?
Thanks,
Timothy C. Lehr
Attorney at Law
Stiles Law Inc., P.S.
p: 360.855.0131
e: timothy at stileslaw.com <mailto:timothy at stileslaw.com>
w: www.stileslaw.com <http://www.stileslaw.com>
NOTICE: The information contained in this email is proprietary and/or
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of
this communication, you are hereby notified to : (i) delete the email and
all copies; (ii) not disclose, distribute or use the email in any manner;
(iii) notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
---
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/20200330/9f9fcaa0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:59:07 -0700
From: Douglas Scott <doug at rainieradvocates.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Commercial Evictions
Message-ID:
<CANnLPWAwzJmih-fqSqqbxa4WPjZsH8dMQRskQTY-2UFp4+g_yg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Timothy,
That is how I'm viewing it. I too have a client who is in need of getting
rid of a bad commercial tenant who has not paid his March rent, never
obtained liability insurance and has bothered other tenants with very loud
music. If we served him with a 3 day pay rent or vacate notice, plus 10 day
notice, this can at least get any future unlawful detainer action going.
Although I heard that King County has put a halt to evictions of small
businesses and nonprofits, going to court could be the last stage of the
process.
*DOUGLAS W. SCOTT*
Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
*Eastside Office*
465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C | Issaquah, Washington 98027 | 425.392.8550
(tel) | 425.392.2829 (fax)
*Seattle Office*
12055 15th Ave NE | Seattle, Washington 98125 | 206.552.0785 (tel)
www.rainieradvocates.com f/k/a
www.davisscottlaw.com
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information
that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed
only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the
intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly
delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in
any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may
be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not
a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Timothy Lehr <timothy at stileslaw.com> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> My thought is commercial evictions are not included in the Governor?s
> moratorium on evictions in general. Is that right? Also, if one wanted to
> proceed with a commercial eviction, I?m hesitant to tell our local superior
> court that it is an ?emergent case?, as the court is requesting any new
> hearings amount to. My client views it as an emergency of course, but there
> is no health or safety risk involved.
>
>
>
> Wondering how other LL attorneys are approaching these issues?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> *Timothy C. Lehr*
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Stiles Law Inc., P.S.
>
>
>
> p: 360.855.0131
>
> e: timothy at stileslaw.com
>
> w: www.stileslaw.com
>
>
>
> *NOTICE*: The information contained in this email is proprietary and/or
> confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this communication, you are hereby notified to : (i) delete the email
> and all copies; (ii) not disclose, distribute or use the email in any
> manner; (iii) notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: AVG logo] <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>
>
> <#m_-6880438377288895935_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/b06c84d9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:10:05 +0000
From: "Laird, Katherine" <KatherineLaird at CenturyPacificLP.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the
mountains
Message-ID:
<bd69073d-d8b8-4aff-9cba-676ef088efa8 at CenturyPacificLP.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Pat Aylward in Wenatchee. If he is not available he will know the right person. That said, an easement should not be interpreted based on location.
K
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
On Mar 30, 2020 2:10 PM, Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com> wrote:
[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Hello Brain Trust -
I have a good friend who has reached out to me regarding about 80 acres of undeveloped land he owns near Leavenworth. He's having a dispute about easements for ingress and egress with a neighbor. I know things are done a little differently over there - so I don't think I'm the right fit for helping this friend out.
Does anyone have any referrals for local attorneys in that area who handle this kind of issue? Self-referrals welcome!
--
Thank you,
Kaitlyn R. Jackson | Attorney| DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: 206.973.3500 | f: 206.577.5090| e: kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com| www.dimensionlaw.com<http://www.dimensionlaw.com>
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 C!
IRCULAR 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/20200330/f523be59/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:31:52 -0700
From: Synthia Melton <synthia at dimensionlaw.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Stay on all residential evictions
Message-ID:
<CA+rNwt2iW4G5va=K07X++-kap5omnObf+0ei1Q6D1_Bj2UUWMA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello All,
I'm aware of the ban on non-payment of rent cases across the State and that
King County Sheriff will not execute on any residential evictions, aside
from nuisance, health, and safety.
I have a default on a residential unlawful detainer based on code violation
issues in King County.
I called the King County Clerk's office and was told that today the clerk
received notification that everything related to residential unlawful
detainers is stayed, including non-landlord tenant cases such as post
foreclosure and even cases related to healthy and safety.
I am wondering if anyone has any updates?
I saw an order from the Court dated March 27, 2020 and it looks like #13
may reference this.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/COVID-19/FILED-Emergency-Order15-KCSC-200120505.ashx?la=en
Respectfully,
SYNTHIA A. MELTON | PARTNER | DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: *206.973.3500 *| f: *206.577.5090*| e: *synthia at dimensionlaw.com*|
www.dimensionlaw.com
--
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/20200330/4cc8978c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:45:27 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Stay on all residential evictions
Message-ID:
<57DC2058F333E340877E55171112778475653060 at SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Updated and most recent rules are posted at:
https://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court.aspx
See the Civil "Description of Operations" and "Emergency Order" (which is Emergency Order #15).
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
Covid-19 Update - Sayre Law Offices remains available to serve our clients and the public during this time, subject to the orders and recommendations of government authority. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of service to you, your family, or your business.
All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.
MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.
Be assured that we will continue to advise and support our clients throughout this health emergency.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Synthia Melton
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:32 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Stay on all residential evictions
Hello All,
I'm aware of the ban on non-payment of rent cases across the State and that King County Sheriff will not execute on any residential evictions, aside from nuisance, health, and safety.
I have a default on a residential unlawful detainer based on code violation issues in King County.
I called the King County Clerk's office and was told that today the clerk received notification that everything related to residential unlawful detainers is stayed, including non-landlord tenant cases such as post foreclosure and even cases related to healthy and safety.
I am wondering if anyone has any updates?
I saw an order from the Court dated March 27, 2020 and it looks like #13 may reference this.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/COVID-19/FILED-Emergency-Order15-KCSC-200120505.ashx?la=en
Respectfully,
SYNTHIA A. MELTON | PARTNER | DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: 206.973.3500 | f: 206.577.5090| e: synthia at dimensionlaw.com|<mailto:synthia at dimensionlaw.com|> www.dimensionlaw.com<http://www.dimensionlaw.com>
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 C!
IRCULAR 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/20200330/c58a4f6c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:21:49 -0700
From: Douglas Scott <doug at rainieradvocates.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Pierce County commercial evictions
Message-ID:
<CANnLPWAyKpYyvquAf6ycnGwiRRiiPmHnU3VRXgnLm7urLB-VEQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Does anyone know to what extent these might be currently limited? I
represent a closed down restaurant that cannot make their monthly payment.
*DOUGLAS W. SCOTT*
Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
*Eastside Office*
465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C | Issaquah, Washington 98027 | 425.392.8550
(tel) | 425.392.2829 (fax)
*Seattle Office*
12055 15th Ave NE | Seattle, Washington 98125 | 206.552.0785 (tel)
www.rainieradvocates.com f/k/a
www.davisscottlaw.com
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information
that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed
only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the
intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly
delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in
any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may
be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not
a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/8195f21c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:24:13 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
Message-ID:
<MWHPR11MB1597D9DA46DEE3BEE5D138A0D2CB0 at MWHPR11MB1597.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So, RCW 64.38.020(11) says that a HOA may "Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments AND, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violation of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association."
So, does this mean a HOA may collect charges for late payments with no other requirements or does the language above mean that a HOA may collect charges for late payments but HAS TO give the debtor and opportunity to be heard? One interpretation is that a HOA may impose charges for late assessments AND IF the HOA wants to ALSO levy fines for violations of bylaw, rules, and regulations, then the HOA must give the debtor "an opportunity to be heard." In other words, it is proper/legal under this section if an HOA says "Look, homeowner/debtor, we charge $25 a year for dues, please don't request a hearing and waste our time.
(OK people. This is a legal inquiry. Please don't flame/flog me as an insensitive clod. I know these are neighbors. I know everyone has a sad story. I have heard of Covid-19. I know a plate of warm chocolate-chip cookies might get the bill paid. I am only asking IF the HOA has the power to impose the late fees without having to go through the "opportunity to be heard" process.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/d8eca2b0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Paul A Neumiller.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 34670 bytes
Desc: Paul A Neumiller.vcf
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/d8eca2b0/PaulANeumiller-0001.vcf>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:43:03 +0000
From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
Message-ID:
<MW3PR11MB4588185C2D25BFA1EFEE91FDC8CB0 at MW3PR11MB4588.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In almost all the HOAs I have dealt with the late charge and default interest is either spelled out in the CC and Rs or in the bylaws.. If in neither then the bd of HOA could pass a resolution providing for a late charge and or default interest. The only notice to members has to do with the fine schedule and due process provisions dealing with fines (Doesn't have to be approved by the members) and after that notice is given after adoption by the Board then HOA must follow its due process provisions for fines only
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:24 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
So, RCW 64.38.020(11) says that a HOA may "Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments AND, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violation of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association."
So, does this mean a HOA may collect charges for late payments with no other requirements or does the language above mean that a HOA may collect charges for late payments but HAS TO give the debtor and opportunity to be heard? One interpretation is that a HOA may impose charges for late assessments AND IF the HOA wants to ALSO levy fines for violations of bylaw, rules, and regulations, then the HOA must give the debtor "an opportunity to be heard." In other words, it is proper/legal under this section if an HOA says "Look, homeowner/debtor, we charge $25 a year for dues, please don't request a hearing and waste our time.
(OK people. This is a legal inquiry. Please don't flame/flog me as an insensitive clod. I know these are neighbors. I know everyone has a sad story. I have heard of Covid-19. I know a plate of warm chocolate-chip cookies might get the bill paid. I am only asking IF the HOA has the power to impose the late fees without having to go through the "opportunity to be heard" process.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200330/b9400677/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:05:27 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
Message-ID:
<MWHPR11MB1597DB96441034AA07D2C54BD2C80 at MWHPR11MB1597.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Being from the mid-1960s, these CC&Rs are blissfully short.
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D606B5.65AEF3A0]
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.
E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:43 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
In almost all the HOAs I have dealt with the late charge and default interest is either spelled out in the CC and Rs or in the bylaws.. If in neither then the bd of HOA could pass a resolution providing for a late charge and or default interest. The only notice to members has to do with the fine schedule and due process provisions dealing with fines (Doesn't have to be approved by the members) and after that notice is given after adoption by the Board then HOA must follow its due process provisions for fines only
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 Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:24 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
So, RCW 64.38.020(11) says that a HOA may "Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments AND, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violation of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association."
So, does this mean a HOA may collect charges for late payments with no other requirements or does the language above mean that a HOA may collect charges for late payments but HAS TO give the debtor and opportunity to be heard? One interpretation is that a HOA may impose charges for late assessments AND IF the HOA wants to ALSO levy fines for violations of bylaw, rules, and regulations, then the HOA must give the debtor "an opportunity to be heard." In other words, it is proper/legal under this section if an HOA says "Look, homeowner/debtor, we charge $25 a year for dues, please don't request a hearing and waste our time.
(OK people. This is a legal inquiry. Please don't flame/flog me as an insensitive clod. I know these are neighbors. I know everyone has a sad story. I have heard of Covid-19. I know a plate of warm chocolate-chip cookies might get the bill paid. I am only asking IF the HOA has the power to impose the late fees without having to go through the "opportunity to be heard" process.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/308cccaa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12625 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/308cccaa/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:12:20 +0000
From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of
the mountains
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1701MB1790B57328FB5BE878D2CB34DCC80 at MWHPR1701MB1790.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Kaitlyn: Although I am located in Bellevue, I handle lots of significant access and easement disputes, including one I just finished in Wenatchee. I was also just successful at trial on a significant easement dispute on waterfront property on Lake Washington. I would happy to at least consult with your friend. ?Greg Ursich
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D606B6.117F0580]
Gregory L. Ursich
Shareholder
Skyline Tower, Suite 1500 | 10900 NE 4th Street | Bellevue, WA 98004
P: 425.450.4258 | F: 425.635.7720
vCard<http://www.insleebest.com/uploads/vcards/gursich.vcf> | website<http://www.insleebest.com/> | gursich at insleebest.com<mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>
This electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlyn Jackson
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:08 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] PC/friend needs a real property attorney east of the mountains
Hello Brain Trust -
I have a good friend who has reached out to me regarding about 80 acres of undeveloped land he owns near Leavenworth. He's having a dispute about easements for ingress and egress with a neighbor. I know things are done a little differently over there - so I don't think I'm the right fit for helping this friend out.
Does anyone have any referrals for local attorneys in that area who handle this kind of issue? Self-referrals welcome!
--
Thank you,
Kaitlyn R. Jackson | Attorney| DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: 206.973.3500 | f: 206.577.5090| e: kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com|<mailto:kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com|> www.dimensionlaw.com<http://www.dimensionlaw.com/>
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 C!
IRCULAR 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/20200331/c5977fcc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5282 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/c5977fcc/image003-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 07:33:15 +0000
From: Inge Fordham <inge at fordhamlegal.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
Message-ID: <231423A2-F56C-4F50-957F-6C5D7522B0B0 at fordhamlegal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I read it to say that HOA?s can impose late fees without an opportunity to be heard, but that fines (i.e. for bbq on deck, uncut lawn, and so on) require notice and an opportunity to be heard. That?s how I?ve seen it enforced by many associations. Just my two cents.
Inge A. Fordham
Fordham Law, PLLC
3218 Sixth Avenue
Tacoma, WA 98406
(253) 348-2657
On Mar 30, 2020, at 5:08 PM, Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com> wrote:
?
Being from the mid-1960s, these CC&Rs are blissfully short.
<image002.jpg>
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.
E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:43 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
In almost all the HOAs I have dealt with the late charge and default interest is either spelled out in the CC and Rs or in the bylaws.. If in neither then the bd of HOA could pass a resolution providing for a late charge and or default interest. The only notice to members has to do with the fine schedule and due process provisions dealing with fines (Doesn?t have to be approved by the members) and after that notice is given after adoption by the Board then HOA must follow its due process provisions for fines only
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 Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:24 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
So, RCW 64.38.020(11) says that a HOA may "Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments AND, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violation of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association."
So, does this mean a HOA may collect charges for late payments with no other requirements or does the language above mean that a HOA may collect charges for late payments but HAS TO give the debtor and opportunity to be heard? One interpretation is that a HOA may impose charges for late assessments AND IF the HOA wants to ALSO levy fines for violations of bylaw, rules, and regulations, then the HOA must give the debtor ?an opportunity to be heard.? In other words, it is proper/legal under this section if an HOA says ?Look, homeowner/debtor, we charge $25 a year for dues, please don?t request a hearing and waste our time.
(OK people. This is a legal inquiry. Please don?t flame/flog me as an insensitive clod. I know these are neighbors. I know everyone has a sad story. I have heard of Covid-19. I know a plate of warm chocolate-chip cookies might get the bill paid. I am only asking IF the HOA has the power to impose the late fees without having to go through the ?opportunity to be heard? process.)
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/76eb3311/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12625 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/76eb3311/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:21:52 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
Message-ID:
<MWHPR11MB159770BD7445F888C6139F41D2C80 at MWHPR11MB1597.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Thanks Inge, that is also my reading of the statute but I wanted to bounce it off of the hivemind first.
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D6073D.66D876B0]
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.
E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Inge Fordham
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 12:33 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
I read it to say that HOA?s can impose late fees without an opportunity to be heard, but that fines (i.e. for bbq on deck, uncut lawn, and so on) require notice and an opportunity to be heard. That?s how I?ve seen it enforced by many associations. Just my two cents.
Inge A. Fordham
Fordham Law, PLLC
3218 Sixth Avenue
Tacoma, WA 98406
(253) 348-2657
On Mar 30, 2020, at 5:08 PM, Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com<mailto:pneumiller at hotmail.com>> wrote:
?
Being from the mid-1960s, these CC&Rs are blissfully short.
<image002.jpg>
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.
E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.
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 Bryce Dille
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:43 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
In almost all the HOAs I have dealt with the late charge and default interest is either spelled out in the CC and Rs or in the bylaws.. If in neither then the bd of HOA could pass a resolution providing for a late charge and or default interest. The only notice to members has to do with the fine schedule and due process provisions dealing with fines (Doesn?t have to be approved by the members) and after that notice is given after adoption by the Board then HOA must follow its due process provisions for fines only
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 Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:24 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA Gurus and Opportunity to be Heard
So, RCW 64.38.020(11) says that a HOA may "Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments AND, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violation of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association."
So, does this mean a HOA may collect charges for late payments with no other requirements or does the language above mean that a HOA may collect charges for late payments but HAS TO give the debtor and opportunity to be heard? One interpretation is that a HOA may impose charges for late assessments AND IF the HOA wants to ALSO levy fines for violations of bylaw, rules, and regulations, then the HOA must give the debtor ?an opportunity to be heard.? In other words, it is proper/legal under this section if an HOA says ?Look, homeowner/debtor, we charge $25 a year for dues, please don?t request a hearing and waste our time.
(OK people. This is a legal inquiry. Please don?t flame/flog me as an insensitive clod. I know these are neighbors. I know everyone has a sad story. I have heard of Covid-19. I know a plate of warm chocolate-chip cookies might get the bill paid. I am only asking IF the HOA has the power to impose the late fees without having to go through the ?opportunity to be heard? process.)
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/aae4e880/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12625 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/aae4e880/image002-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:14:01 +0000
From: Rod Harmon <rodharmon at msn.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission
period after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property
disclosure statement?
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1401MB20648E3CFDB76D22EFBAABE3ABC80 at MWHPR1401MB2064.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
As originally enacted in 1994, RCW 64.06.040 required a seller to amend the seller disclosure statement if the seller became aware of additional information which made any of the disclosures inaccurate. An amendment starts a new three-business-day rescission period. In the 2009 amendments, that requirement was amended to limit the duty to amend to situations in which "the seller ((becomes aware)) learns from a source other than the buyer or others acting on the buyer's behalf such as an inspector of additional information ... which makes any of the disclosures made inaccurate." With that amendment, if the buyer discovered the additional information after the three-business-day period expired but before closing, the seller was not obligated to amend the disclosure statement. For example, say the buyer discovers that the property is in an environmentally critical area and the disclosure statement says it is not. Because the rescission period had expired, the buyer would no!
t be able to use the disclosure statute to rescind. This seems strange to me.
I can see how in that case the buyer could rescind on a common law ground, preserved under RCW 64.06.050. Specifically, the buyer could rescind based upon a mutual mistake about a material fact, or, if the seller knew of the ECA designation, unilateral mistake by the buyer and concealment by the seller. But I am having trouble understanding why the legislature amended the statute so that the buyer could not use RCW 64.06 to rescind the contract. I did not find anything in the legislative history that addresses it. I would appreciate any insight anyone has into the reason for this amendment. I am hoping someone on this listserv had a hand in drafting it.
Rod Harmon
RODNEY T. HARMON
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1066
Bothell, WA 98041
Tel: (425) 402-7800
Fax: (425) 458-9096
www.rodharmon.com<http://www.rodharmon.com>
rodharmon at msn.com<mailto:rodharmon at msn.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/bd07c69c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:18:23 +0000
From: Rod Harmon <rodharmon at msn.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Snohomish County
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1401MB2064EFF852AFADA2BF5A8C67ABC80 at MWHPR1401MB2064.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So is Snohomish County the only superior court that has not figured out how to hear civil summary judgment motions during the quarantine period?
Rod Harmon
RODNEY T. HARMON
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1066
Bothell, WA 98041
Tel: (425) 402-7800
Fax: (425) 458-9096
www.rodharmon.com<http://www.rodharmon.com>
rodharmon at msn.com<mailto:rodharmon at msn.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:45 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Stay on all residential evictions
Updated and most recent rules are posted at:
https://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court.aspx<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kingcounty.gov%2Fcourts%2Fsuperior-court.aspx&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8f463794f63049bce79208d7d4fd8983%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637212057710346324&sdata=YO4ApwPKsTWmkYpnV6ls9xjkiYh4cXmVADSOEM%2BsKo8%3D&reserved=0>
See the Civil "Description of Operations" and "Emergency Order" (which is Emergency Order #15).
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
Covid-19 Update - Sayre Law Offices remains available to serve our clients and the public during this time, subject to the orders and recommendations of government authority. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of service to you, your family, or your business.
All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone; please call the Seattle office. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis; please call the Seattle office.
MAIL AND DELIVERIES can be received at the Seattle office. For any other needed arrangements, please call the Seattle office.
Be assured that we will continue to advise and support our clients throughout this health emergency.
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 Synthia Melton
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:32 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Stay on all residential evictions
Hello All,
I'm aware of the ban on non-payment of rent cases across the State and that King County Sheriff will not execute on any residential evictions, aside from nuisance, health, and safety.
I have a default on a residential unlawful detainer based on code violation issues in King County.
I called the King County Clerk's office and was told that today the clerk received notification that everything related to residential unlawful detainers is stayed, including non-landlord tenant cases such as post foreclosure and even cases related to healthy and safety.
I am wondering if anyone has any updates?
I saw an order from the Court dated March 27, 2020 and it looks like #13 may reference this.
https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/courts/superior-court/docs/COVID-19/FILED-Emergency-Order15-KCSC-200120505.ashx?la=en<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Fwww.kingcounty.gov%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fcourts%2Fsuperior-court%2Fdocs%2FCOVID-19%2FFILED-Emergency-Order15-KCSC-200120505.ashx%3Fla%3Den&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8f463794f63049bce79208d7d4fd8983%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637212057710356335&sdata=gPUMAyD549HO9DRrci2XZdgug9OjqPTxNRG8EQdLESE%3D&reserved=0>
Respectfully,
SYNTHIA A. MELTON | PARTNER | DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: 206.973.3500 | f: 206.577.5090| e: synthia at dimensionlaw.com|<mailto:synthia at dimensionlaw.com|> www.dimensionlaw.com<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dimensionlaw.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C8f463794f63049bce79208d7d4fd8983%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637212057710366352&sdata=6ZwhIGERJplFtTDdXFm4cs65XNRM6UONudXwwKOe2To%3D&reserved=0>
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 C!
IRCULAR 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/20200331/9f762fbd/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:27:17 -0700
From: Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day
rescission period after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real
property disclosure statement?
Message-ID: <45f37efd-4a74-dd68-c91c-f2e44937d468 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
I don't know about the legislative history, but I think the purpose is
likely related to the inspection process.? From the inspection response
the seller will frequently learn of new conditions to the property and
the amendment merely keeps the seller from needing to amend the
disclosure statement --for that particular sale to that particular buyer.
Also, the purpose of the disclosure statement is to disclose conditions
to the buyer.? If the buyer informs the seller that purpose would not be
fulfilled because the buyer by definition already knows.
What you're getting at is seemingly more what are the buyer's remedies
if they discover the disclosure statement was inaccurate.
Kary L. Krismer
John L. Scott, Inc.
206 723-2148
On 3/31/2020 10:14 AM, Rod Harmon wrote:
>
> As originally enacted in 1994, RCW 64.06.040 required a seller to
> amend the seller disclosure statement if the seller became aware of
> additional information which made any of the disclosures inaccurate.?
> An amendment starts a new three-business-day rescission period.? In
> the 2009 amendments, that requirement was amended to limit the duty to
> amend to situations in which "the seller ((becomes aware))_learns from
> a source other than the buyer or others acting on the buyer's behalf
> such as an inspector_ of additional information ? which makes any of
> the disclosures made inaccurate."? With that amendment, if the buyer
> discovered the additional information after the three-business-day
> period expired but before closing, the seller was not obligated to
> amend the disclosure statement.? For example, say the buyer discovers
> that the property is in an environmentally critical area and the
> disclosure statement says it is not. Because the rescission period had
> expired, the buyer would not be able to use the disclosure statute to
> rescind. This seems strange to me.
>
> I can see how in that case the buyer could rescind on a common law
> ground, preserved under RCW 64.06.050. Specifically, the buyer could
> rescind based upon a mutual mistake about a material fact, or, if the
> seller knew of the ECA designation, unilateral mistake by the buyer
> and concealment by the seller.? But I am having trouble understanding
> why the legislature amended the statute so that the buyer could not
> use RCW 64.06? to rescind the contract. I did not find anything in the
> legislative history that addresses it.? I would appreciate any insight
> anyone has into the reason for this amendment. I am hoping someone on
> this listserv had a hand in drafting it.
>
> Rod Harmon
>
> **
>
> *RODNEY T. HARMON*
>
> *Attorney at Law*
>
> P.O. Box 1066
>
> Bothell, WA?? 98041
>
> Tel:?? (425) 402-7800
>
> Fax:? (425) 458-9096
>
> www.rodharmon.com <http://www.rodharmon.com>
>
> rodharmon at msn.com <mailto:rodharmon at msn.com>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/8d41cc6f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:59:23 -0700
From: "Josh Grant" <jgrant at accima.com>
To: "WSBA Real Property Listserv" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Pierce County commercial evictions
Message-ID: <BCF4AA5EF22340AF99D9795F8CFC3DF1 at JoshPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The Governor?s order originally only applied to residential. I haven?t seen any change on that.
Joshua F. Grant
P. O. Box 619
Wilbur, WA 99185
509 647 5578
From: Douglas Scott
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:21 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: [WSBARP] Pierce County commercial evictions
Does anyone know to what extent these might be currently limited? I represent a closed down restaurant that cannot make their monthly payment.
DOUGLAS W. SCOTT
Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
Eastside Office
465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C | Issaquah, Washington 98027 | 425.392.8550 (tel) | 425.392.2829 (fax)
Seattle Office
12055 15th Ave NE | Seattle, Washington 98125 | 206.552.0785 (tel)
www.rainieradvocates.com f/k/a
www.davisscottlaw.com
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/4901fc71/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: advocates[3].png
Type: image/png
Size: 7674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/4901fc71/advocates3-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:12:41 -0700
From: Rob Rowley <rob at rowleylegal.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Pierce County commercial evictions
Message-ID: <775a95f92b67801f589028a0f9e5a491 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Spokane City council enacted an emergency declaration temporarily barring
both commercial and residential evictions thru April 30 (except for
imminent threats).
https://www.krem.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/extendedevictionprotectioncoronavirus/293-20efae4e-5222-42cc-800b-e5d531abd589
Attorney Robert R Rowley
W: (509) 252-5074
M: (509) 994-1143
rob at rowleylegal.com
*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Josh Grant
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:59 AM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Pierce County commercial evictions
The Governor?s order originally only applied to residential. I haven?t
seen any change on that.
*Joshua F. Grant*
[image: advocates]
P. O. Box 619
Wilbur, WA 99185
509 647 5578
*From:* Douglas Scott
*Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2020 4:21 PM
*To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
*Subject:* [WSBARP] Pierce County commercial evictions
Does anyone know to what extent these might be currently limited? I
represent a closed down restaurant that cannot make their monthly payment.
*DOUGLAS W. SCOTT*
Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
*Eastside Office*
465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C | Issaquah, Washington 98027 | 425.392.8550
(tel) | 425.392.2829 (fax)
*Seattle Office*
12055 15th Ave NE | Seattle, Washington 98125 | 206.552.0785 (tel)
www.rainieradvocates.com f/k/a
www.davisscottlaw.com
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information
that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed
only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the
intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly
delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in
any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may
be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not
a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege
------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/dc67973e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/dc67973e/image001-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:46:41 +0000
From: Rod Harmon <rodharmon at msn.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission
period after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property
disclosure statement?
Message-ID:
<MWHPR1401MB2064577BE5DEF3C09F014ECBABC80 at MWHPR1401MB2064.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yes, that is what I am getting at. What are the buyer's remedies if they discover the disclosure statement was inaccurate? If the discovery is within the three-day window, the buyer can rescind under 64.0, cut and dried. There ought to be a cut and dried solution even if the discovery is after the three-day window, but there isn't. You have to get into a mutual mistake analysis, which also involves asking whether there was constructive knowledge or an assumption of risk. I think the legislature should have left some mechanism in place that did not require going to court in case a disclosure statement inaccuracy was discovered late in the closing process.
Rod Harmon
RODNEY T. HARMON
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1066
Bothell, WA 98041
Tel: (425) 402-7800
Fax: (425) 458-9096
www.rodharmon.com<http://www.rodharmon.com>
rodharmon at msn.com<mailto:rodharmon at msn.com>
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:27 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Why doesn't a buyer get a new three-day rescission period after discovering inaccuracy in the seller's real property disclosure statement?
I don't know about the legislative history, but I think the purpose is likely related to the inspection process. From the inspection response the seller will frequently learn of new conditions to the property and the amendment merely keeps the seller from needing to amend the disclosure statement --for that particular sale to that particular buyer.
Also, the purpose of the disclosure statement is to disclose conditions to the buyer. If the buyer informs the seller that purpose would not be fulfilled because the buyer by definition already knows.
What you're getting at is seemingly more what are the buyer's remedies if they discover the disclosure statement was inaccurate.
Kary L. Krismer
John L. Scott, Inc.
206 723-2148
On 3/31/2020 10:14 AM, Rod Harmon wrote:
As originally enacted in 1994, RCW 64.06.040 required a seller to amend the seller disclosure statement if the seller became aware of additional information which made any of the disclosures inaccurate. An amendment starts a new three-business-day rescission period. In the 2009 amendments, that requirement was amended to limit the duty to amend to situations in which "the seller ((becomes aware)) learns from a source other than the buyer or others acting on the buyer's behalf such as an inspector of additional information ... which makes any of the disclosures made inaccurate." With that amendment, if the buyer discovered the additional information after the three-business-day period expired but before closing, the seller was not obligated to amend the disclosure statement. For example, say the buyer discovers that the property is in an environmentally critical area and the disclosure statement says it is not. Because the rescission period had expired, the buyer would no!
t be able to use the disclosure statute to rescind. This seems strange to me.
I can see how in that case the buyer could rescind on a common law ground, preserved under RCW 64.06.050. Specifically, the buyer could rescind based upon a mutual mistake about a material fact, or, if the seller knew of the ECA designation, unilateral mistake by the buyer and concealment by the seller. But I am having trouble understanding why the legislature amended the statute so that the buyer could not use RCW 64.06 to rescind the contract. I did not find anything in the legislative history that addresses it. I would appreciate any insight anyone has into the reason for this amendment. I am hoping someone on this listserv had a hand in drafting it.
Rod Harmon
RODNEY T. HARMON
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1066
Bothell, WA 98041
Tel: (425) 402-7800
Fax: (425) 458-9096
www.rodharmon.com<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rodharmon.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9d1351cc189745c7214108d7d59a15c4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637212730069258808&sdata=DkomXvF%2BzmBIGqdeMlzDYpQonkYJvcfBPiA6Mhp8gv4%3D&reserved=0>
rodharmon at msn.com<mailto:rodharmon at msn.com>
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9d1351cc189745c7214108d7d59a15c4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637212730069258808&sdata=7hiK%2B8QvZ4RggFAdnl9bYshMlZrKMHXhMdAClZ3S%2BVE%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/76fd9020/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 66, Issue 26
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200331/7a1acc2c/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list