[WSBARP] Adverse Possession against FDIC
Randy Boyer
randyedlynlaw at gmail.com
Sun Apr 4 10:18:34 PDT 2021
Greg and all
Thank you for your input. I do believe in this case an adverse possession case can be brought. I need to do the research to confirm it.
Randy
Randy M. Boyer ______
Attorney, WSBA# 8665
Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S.
7017 196th St. S.W. Lynnwood, Washington 98036
( 425.712.3107| Fax 425.778.2274
mail to: randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended only for the addressee’s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or other use of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email. Thank you for your cooperation.
> On Apr 3, 2021, at 12:00 PM, wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com wrote:
>
> 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. Re: Adverse Possession case against FDIC (Gregory L. Ursich)
> 2. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4 (Stephen Whitehouse)
> 3. Re: [REALPROP] We Knew It Was Gonna Happen (Paul Neumiller)
> 4. Re: Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit
> (Dwight Bickel)
> 5. Business Attorney (Sangeeta Saigal)
> 6. Re: Business Attorney (John J. Sullivan)
> 7. Re: Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit
> (Gregory L. Ursich)
> 8. Re: Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit
> (Kary Krismer)
> 9. Re: Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit
> (Dwight Bickel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:55:21 +0000
> From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession case against FDIC
> Message-ID:
> <MWHPR17MB1501AB2AABFE4A9FEB185BB1DC7A9 at MWHPR17MB1501.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Randy: I think in this unique circumstance adverse possession CAN be asserted because the ownership interest they would assert would not be in a governmental capacity.
>
> [cid:image003.jpg at 01D727BF.4EF6C170]
> 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 Gregory L. Ursich
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2021 10:27 AM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession case against FDIC
>
> Randy: if your client is the property owner and still pays on a first Deed of trust, he never ?lost? the property to the FDIC. He is still in full possession and ownership. Whatever Interest the FDIC has is subject to your client?s senior interest, and that of the 1st position lender. -Greg
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com<mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
> ? Listmates
>
> Thank you for you input. In this case FDIC foreclosed on a second deed of trust over ten years ago. They never took possession of the property and I believe they forgot they have title. My client continue to use the property, paying the first deed of trust and taxes for the past 10 years. A year after the foreclosure deed FDIC sold the note that secured the debt to a Limited Partnership (I do not have a copy of that Sale Agreement). I cannot determine if FDIC intended the assign the foreclosed property to them. The LP reached settlement with my client on the outstanding note.
>
> Sounds like most of you feel adverse possession cannot be asserted against FDIC. But they are a receiver for the insolvent bank and do not hod on to real property as far as I know.
>
> Randy
> Randy M. Boyer ______
> Attorney, WSBA# 8665
> Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S.
> 7017 196th St. S.W. Lynnwood, Washington 98036
> ? 425.712.3107| Fax 425.778.2274
> mail to: randyedlynlaw at gmail.com<mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
> This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended only for the addressee?s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or other use of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> ***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/20210402/5e1edf0c/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/20210402/5e1edf0c/image003-0001.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 20:21:58 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Stephen Whitehouse <swhite8893 at aol.com>
> To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
> Message-ID: <928234650.403147.1617394919010 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Regarding the lack of probate affidavit, we have communicated with the Department of Revenue on that and cited to, in our mind, clear authority for the fact they cannot require an affidavit since it is not a transfer of an interest in real property. They would not agree and did not really cite to any authority. The local people are just doing what DOR is telling them to do.
> Steve
>
> Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave.Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885
> swhite8893 at aol.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Sent: Fri, Apr 2, 2021 11:50 am
> Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 79, Issue 4
>
> 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. Re: Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit??? to
> ? ? ? Record Transfer on Death Deed (Ronald St. Hilaire)
> ? 2. Re: Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax??? Affidavit??? to
> ? ? ? Record Transfer on Death Deed (Joshua McKarcher)
> ? 3. Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
> ? ? ? (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)
> ? 4. Re: Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice (Maxwell Glasson)
> ? 5. Re: Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
> ? ? ? (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)
> ? 6. Re: Adverse Possession case against FDIC (Randy Boyer)
> ? 7. Re: Adverse Possession case against FDIC (Gregory L. Ursich)
> ? 8. Re: Update on Need for Real Estate Excise??? Tax??? Affidavit??? to
> ? ? ? Record Transfer on Death Deed (Jennifer L White)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:04:11 +0000
> From: "Ronald St. Hilaire" <rfs at licbs.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
> ??? Affidavit??? to??? Record Transfer on Death Deed
> Message-ID:
> ??? <MW2PR20MB20913B2897BB4826645277E7A57A9 at MW2PR20MB2091.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
> ???
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Benton County has recently been requiring a REETA to record a Lack of Probate Affidavit.? Further, if you want to attach a CPA or Will to the affidavit, they are charging additional recording fees, which they have not done in the past.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Ronald F. St. Hilaire * Certified Elder Law Attorney
> Liebler & St. Hilaire, P.S.
> P.O. Box 6125 * Kennewick, WA? 99336
> 8131 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite 101 * Kennewick, WA? 99336
> (509) 735-3581 office * (509) 735-3585 fax
> rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com> * www.bentonfranklinlaw.com<http://www.bentonfranklinlaw.com/>
> [LieblerStHilaire_Color_PS_1]
>
> Certification as Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation.? The Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law.? Certification is not required to practice law in the State of Washington.
>
> Confidentiality Notice:? This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.? It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.? Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:37 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed
>
> Listmates,
>
> A week or two ago we had a discussion regarding Jefferson County requiring an real estate excise tax affidavit to record a transfer on death deed.? I took another listmate's advice and sent in the affidavit with the $10 but with a letter saying it was done under protest and cited the WAC provisions showing no need for such a process.? Yesterday,? we learned we were right no need for the affidavit with such a deed.? HOWEVER, because I was also recording an Affidavit of Lack of Probate, on another matter, it was that document that required the REETA.? WHAT!? I am not going to waste my time researching the WAC's for such a requirement.? At least here in Clallam County, we are never required to include the REETA when recording? such a lack of probate affidavit or even a community property agreement.? County Treasurers' creativity, or obstructionism, never ceases to amaze me.? At least it is Friday!
>
> Jeff Davis
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/2cfcaedc/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 62472 bytes
> Desc: image001.png
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/2cfcaedc/image001-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:20:30 +0000
> From: Joshua McKarcher <josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
> ??? Affidavit??? to??? Record Transfer on Death Deed
> Message-ID:
> ??? <MW3PR11MB46527DBEA630C8D334CB1356BB7A9 at MW3PR11MB4652.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
> ???
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I recently researched the WACs on this. Recording the community property agreement or transfer on death deed, which does not affect title at that moment, does not require a REETA, because no change of title occurs then.
>
> Later, when someone dies and title changes, even just to remove a spouse, then the REETA is required, and there are clear exemptions to cite on the REETA.
>
> So the WACs do require a REETA for ?activating? the community property agreement (transfer after the death of the first spouse), and they do require a REETA when one of the TOD deed grantors dies thereby ?activating? a transfer of title.
>
> The confusion, I think, lies in that no REETA is required when TOD deeds and CP agreements are initially recorded (for ?future? or ?contingent? changes to title that are merely being memorialized for a possible future change of title).
>
> Hope that helps even one person, ha ha!
>
> Joshua D. McKarcher
> McKarcher Law PLLC
> 537 6th Street
> Clarkston, WA 99403
> (509) 758-3345
> (509) 758-3314 (fax)
> josh at mckarcherlaw.com
> www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com>
> ________________________________
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Ronald St. Hilaire <rfs at licbs.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:11 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed
>
> Benton County has recently been requiring a REETA to record a Lack of Probate Affidavit.? Further, if you want to attach a CPA or Will to the affidavit, they are charging additional recording fees, which they have not done in the past.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Ronald F. St. Hilaire ? Certified Elder Law Attorney
> Liebler & St. Hilaire, P.S.
> P.O. Box 6125 ? Kennewick, WA? 99336
> 8131 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite 101 ? Kennewick, WA? 99336
> (509) 735-3581 office ? (509) 735-3585 fax
> rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com> ? www.bentonfranklinlaw.com<http://www.bentonfranklinlaw.com/>
> [LieblerStHilaire_Color_PS_1]
>
> Certification as Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation.? The Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law.? Certification is not required to practice law in the State of Washington.
>
> Confidentiality Notice:? This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.? It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.? Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:37 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed
>
> Listmates,
>
> A week or two ago we had a discussion regarding Jefferson County requiring an real estate excise tax affidavit to record a transfer on death deed.? I took another listmate?s advice and sent in the affidavit with the $10 but with a letter saying it was done under protest and cited the WAC provisions showing no need for such a process.? Yesterday,? we learned we were right no need for the affidavit with such a deed.? HOWEVER, because I was also recording an Affidavit of Lack of Probate, on another matter, it was that document that required the REETA.? WHAT!? I am not going to waste my time researching the WAC?s for such a requirement.? At least here in Clallam County, we are never required to include the REETA when recording? such a lack of probate affidavit or even a community property agreement.? County Treasurers? creativity, or obstructionism, never ceases to amaze me.? At least it is Friday!
>
> Jeff Davis
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/439ac08a/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 62472 bytes
> Desc: image001.png
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/439ac08a/image001-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 09:40:52 -0700
> From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
> Message-ID: <00a001d727de$f277cf00$d7676d00$@bellanddavispllc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Listmates,
>
>
>
> Probate estate intends to sell two King County properties.? One is a
> multiple unit apartment, fully leased up, and one single family residence
> with a month to month tenant.? Obviously, the estate does not want to evict
> the apartment tenants.? Further, the estate does NOT intend to evict the
> single family home tenant.? I have read to City of Seattle's 90 day notice
> of intent to sell? "good-caused" exception, but I assume that such notice
> does not have to be given for either sale to close because there is no
> intent to terminate the tenancies.? Am I reading this wrong.? The question
> was raised by the current property managers.
>
>
>
> Jeff Davis
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/a030cb27/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:47:24 +0000
> From: Maxwell Glasson <max at glassonlegal.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
> Message-ID:
> ??? <BYAPR06MB6293D1EE8A33796587B424E0C97A9 at BYAPR06MB6293.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
> ???
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Without an intent to evict anyone, you do not need to tender a notice.? Make sure your clients put the ball in the Buyer's court to notify the Tenants of the new ownership and where to tender rent once the sale closes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Maxwell B. Glasson
> Glasson Legal, PLLC
> 2212 Queen Anne Ave. N, #659
> Seattle, Washington, 98109
> 206-627-0528
> max at glassonlegal.com<mailto:max at glassonlegal.com>
> www.glassonlegal.com<http://www.glassonlegal.com/>
> WA# 51948? NV# 13339? CA# 292356
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM OR THE ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:41 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
>
> Listmates,
>
> Probate estate intends to sell two King County properties.? One is a multiple unit apartment, fully leased up, and one single family residence with a month to month tenant.? Obviously, the estate does not want to evict the apartment tenants.? Further, the estate does NOT intend to evict the single family home tenant.? I have read to City of Seattle's 90 day notice of intent to sell? "good-caused" exception, but I assume that such notice does not have to be given for either sale to close because there is no intent to terminate the tenancies.? Am I reading this wrong.? The question was raised by the current property managers.
>
> Jeff Davis
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/374f0c23/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:14:15 -0700
> From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
> Message-ID: <00bb01d727e3$9c767f70$d5637e50$@bellanddavispllc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thank you Mr. Glasson,
>
>
>
> Although the property managers feel the City wants the 90 day notice given,
> even if there is no intent to terminate the lease, by giving the notice the
> tenants may want to move, anyway, to avoid the trouble of people looking at
> the property.? The managers would like to know if they don't have to give
> the notice.? I agree with your statement, if no intent to evict, no need to
> give notice.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> On Behalf Of Maxwell Glasson
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:47 AM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
>
> Without an intent to evict anyone, you do not need to tender a notice.? Make
> sure your clients put the ball in the Buyer's court to notify the Tenants of
> the new ownership and where to tender rent once the sale closes.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Maxwell B. Glasson
>
> Glasson Legal, PLLC
>
> 2212 Queen Anne Ave. N, #659
>
> Seattle, Washington, 98109
>
> 206-627-0528
>
> <mailto:max at glassonlegal.com> max at glassonlegal.com
>
> <http://www.glassonlegal.com/> www.glassonlegal.com
>
> WA# 51948? NV# 13339? CA# 292356
>
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE
> ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF
> THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM OR THE ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE
> NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR
> DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
> USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY
> NOTIFY US AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.
>
>
>
> 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
> Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com <mailto:Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:41 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
> Subject: [WSBARP] Seattle Eviction Moratorium - 90 Day Notice
>
>
>
> Listmates,
>
>
>
> Probate estate intends to sell two King County properties.? One is a
> multiple unit apartment, fully leased up, and one single family residence
> with a month to month tenant.? Obviously, the estate does not want to evict
> the apartment tenants.? Further, the estate does NOT intend to evict the
> single family home tenant.? I have read to City of Seattle's 90 day notice
> of intent to sell? "good-caused" exception, but I assume that such notice
> does not have to be given for either sale to close because there is no
> intent to terminate the tenancies.? Am I reading this wrong.? The question
> was raised by the current property managers.
>
>
>
> Jeff Davis
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/89151956/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:15:36 -0700
> From: Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession case against FDIC
> Message-ID: <068CDB69-EF2C-4A8B-AF5F-BDD9F0F610C2 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Listmates
>
> Thank you for you input.? In this case FDIC foreclosed on a second deed of trust over ten years ago.? They never took possession of the property and I believe they forgot they have title.? My client continue to use the property, paying the first deed of trust and taxes for the past 10 years.? A year after the foreclosure deed FDIC sold the note that secured the debt to a Limited Partnership (I do not have a copy of that Sale Agreement).? I cannot determine if FDIC intended the assign the? foreclosed property to them.? The LP reached settlement with my client on the outstanding note.
>
> Sounds like most of you feel adverse possession cannot be asserted against FDIC.? But they are a receiver for the insolvent bank and do not hod on to real property as far as I know.
>
> Randy
> Randy M. Boyer? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ______
> Attorney, WSBA# 8665
> Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S.
> 7017 196th St. S.W.? Lynnwood, Washington 98036
> ( 425.712.3107|? Fax 425.778.2274
> mail to: randyedlynlaw at gmail.com <mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
> This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged.? This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended only for the addressee?s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or other use of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email.? Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/f20b5ebb/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:26:37 +0000
> From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Adverse Possession case against FDIC
> Message-ID: <BA85F305-81EB-4BBB-9A5F-C93E4387C449 at insleebest.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Randy: if your client is the property owner and still pays on a first Deed of trust, he never ?lost? the property to the FDIC. He is still in full possession and ownership. Whatever Interest the FDIC has is subject to your client?s senior interest, and that of the 1st position lender. -Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 2, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Randy Boyer <randyedlynlaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ? Listmates
>
> Thank you for you input.? In this case FDIC foreclosed on a second deed of trust over ten years ago.? They never took possession of the property and I believe they forgot they have title.? My client continue to use the property, paying the first deed of trust and taxes for the past 10 years.? A year after the foreclosure deed FDIC sold the note that secured the debt to a Limited Partnership (I do not have a copy of that Sale Agreement).? I cannot determine if FDIC intended the assign the? foreclosed property to them.? The LP reached settlement with my client on the outstanding note.
>
> Sounds like most of you feel adverse possession cannot be asserted against FDIC.? But they are a receiver for the insolvent bank and do not hod on to real property as far as I know.
>
> Randy
> Randy M. Boyer? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ______
> Attorney, WSBA# 8665
> Law Office of Randy M. Boyer, Inc. P.S.
> 7017 196th St. S.W.? Lynnwood, Washington 98036
> ? 425.712.3107|? Fax 425.778.2274
> mail to: randyedlynlaw at gmail.com<mailto:randyedlynlaw at gmail.com>
> This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, and is legally privileged.? This email was sent by an attorney or his agent, is intended only for the addressee?s use, and may contain confidential and privileged information.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, reproduction or other use of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender by reply email.? Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> ***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/20210402/79a61ad9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 18:50:44 +0000
> From: Jennifer L White <jen at appletreelaw.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise??? Tax
> ??? Affidavit??? to??? Record Transfer on Death Deed
> Message-ID:
> ??? <BYAPR14MB2613893DDD65DF22F2A6194AC07A9 at BYAPR14MB2613.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
> ???
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks Josh! It helped this one person ?
> Looks like the state is trying to get every $10 it can?.
>
> Jennifer L. White, Esq.
> [cid:image002.jpg at 01D727B5.85EFAD40]
>
> jen at appletreelaw.com<mailto:jen at appletreelaw.com>
> PO Box 11037
> Yakima, WA 98909
> 509.225.9813
>
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Joshua McKarcher
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:21 AM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed
>
> I recently researched the WACs on this. Recording the community property agreement or transfer on death deed, which does not affect title at that moment, does not require a REETA, because no change of title occurs then.
>
> Later, when someone dies and title changes, even just to remove a spouse, then the REETA is required, and there are clear exemptions to cite on the REETA.
>
> So the WACs do require a REETA for ?activating? the community property agreement (transfer after the death of the first spouse), and they do require a REETA when one of the TOD deed grantors dies thereby ?activating? a transfer of title.
>
> The confusion, I think, lies in that no REETA is required when TOD deeds and CP agreements are initially recorded (for ?future? or ?contingent? changes to title that are merely being memorialized for a possible future change of title).
>
> Hope that helps even one person, ha ha!
>
> Joshua D. McKarcher
> McKarcher Law PLLC
> 537 6th Street
> Clarkston, WA 99403
> (509) 758-3345
> (509) 758-3314 (fax)
> josh at mckarcherlaw.com<mailto:josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
> www.mckarcherlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mckarcherlaw.com&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=kDcM-fraYQNOZ1rCslLoMSSRXJQXmQVvRJbE6ymQGho&m=HpvrS9Pdp70rbmn9aKkbnpVhta7ml6RM3avcxDq56_w&s=IMHmxtAx8a4y9IwZL4oZQCK20MfXwswfB3nuWeZB03g&e=>
> ________________________________
> 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 Ronald St. Hilaire <rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com>>
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:11 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed
>
> Benton County has recently been requiring a REETA to record a Lack of Probate Affidavit.? Further, if you want to attach a CPA or Will to the affidavit, they are charging additional recording fees, which they have not done in the past.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Ronald F. St. Hilaire ? Certified Elder Law Attorney
> Liebler & St. Hilaire, P.S.
> P.O. Box 6125 ? Kennewick, WA? 99336
> 8131 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite 101 ? Kennewick, WA? 99336
> (509) 735-3581 office ? (509) 735-3585 fax
> rfs at licbs.com<mailto:rfs at licbs.com> ? www.bentonfranklinlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bentonfranklinlaw.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=kDcM-fraYQNOZ1rCslLoMSSRXJQXmQVvRJbE6ymQGho&m=HpvrS9Pdp70rbmn9aKkbnpVhta7ml6RM3avcxDq56_w&s=uOyqB1inM29fNDV5_1Q6ZxshY7des95Q0TfZhZgWAIU&e=>
> [LieblerStHilaire_Color_PS_1]
>
> Certification as Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation.? The Supreme Court of Washington does not recognize certification of specialties in the practice of law.? Certification is not required to practice law in the State of Washington.
>
> Confidentiality Notice:? This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.? It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.? If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.? Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
> 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 Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com<mailto:Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:37 AM
> To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Update on Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit to Record Transfer on Death Deed
>
> Listmates,
>
> A week or two ago we had a discussion regarding Jefferson County requiring an real estate excise tax affidavit to record a transfer on death deed.? I took another listmate?s advice and sent in the affidavit with the $10 but with a letter saying it was done under protest and cited the WAC provisions showing no need for such a process.? Yesterday,? we learned we were right no need for the affidavit with such a deed.? HOWEVER, because I was also recording an Affidavit of Lack of Probate, on another matter, it was that document that required the REETA.? WHAT!? I am not going to waste my time researching the WAC?s for such a requirement.? At least here in Clallam County, we are never required to include the REETA when recording? such a lack of probate affidavit or even a community property agreement.? County Treasurers? creativity, or obstructionism, never ceases to amaze me.? At least it is Friday!
>
> Jeff Davis
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/165f4e44/attachment.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 987192 bytes
> Desc: image002.jpg
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/165f4e44/image002.jpg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 62472 bytes
> Desc: image003.png
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/165f4e44/image003.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ***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 79, Issue 4
> *************************************
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/ede74f6b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 22:03:59 +0000
> From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
> To: Christopher Cutting <christopher at cuttinglaw.com>
> Cc: "realprop at googlegroups.com" <realprop at googlegroups.com>, WSBA Real
> Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] [REALPROP] We Knew It Was Gonna Happen
> Message-ID:
> <MW3PR13MB398010B2CD75752022C6F560D27A9 at MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks to all who responded with great ideas. Have a good weekend.
>
>
> [cid:image001.jpg at 01D727D1.607DBC20]
>
> From: Christopher Cutting <christopher at cuttinglaw.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:42 PM
> To: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
> Cc: realprop at googlegroups.com; WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [REALPROP] We Knew It Was Gonna Happen
>
> Paul,
> If someone were to complain, it would be the former resident. I dealt with a case once where the former resident spied on the owner/unit for several months to gather evidence he believed showed the owner lied about intending to move in. Per a discussion with an AAG regarding the moratorium, if a tenant made such a complaint they would investigate it and potentially bring a lawsuit for breach of the moratorium. I am not aware of any such cases actually being filed.
>
> To me, your facts make a good case for why the intent to move existed but was never followed-through on. In theory, the ambiguity on whether intent or an actual move is required should go to the citizen in this circumstance, not the government. If the former resident were to sue the owner directly, that could be another story.
>
> I would be most comfortable if he made diligent efforts to fix up the unit (assuming that's feasible) and did move in. In that circumstance, you're looking at a delay rather than a complete change in plans. Life gets in the way sometimes, however, and strong documentation that the unit is not livable, so the owner had to make alternative plans, might be strong enough.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher D. Cutting
> Cutting Law Office PC
> p. 206.788.8840
> www.cuttinglaw.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cuttinglaw.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cce3ce339c1004c37b63008d8f3d57505%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637527445403945415%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=snQPawIwfhG5ad3uI22rig3b3vsvcJL%2BSde3%2FUim1tk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:32 PM Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com<mailto:pneumiller at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Elderly man brings an eviction and delivers a 60-day notice of affidavit of intent to personally occupy. He intended to move in because he is in a wheelchair and the trailer has a handicap ramp. Post-eviction, the family discovers the tenants totally trashed the place with holes in wall, garbage, and vermin. Family (and elderly man) do not want to move elderly father into the trailer knowing its dangerous condition. So, the gov's moratorium requires the LL to state an intention to move in. The moratorium does not give any requirements as to when the LL must move in or what happens under changed circumstances. And, it seems to me that the elderly father fulfilled his requirement under the 60-day notice because, at the time he signed the notice, he had every intention of moving into the trailer.
>
>
>
> Any of you UD Gurus come across this yet and what was your analysis or what was the resolution. It does seem to me that, on a practical basis, who has standing to complain or who is going to complain (or even find out in order to complain)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KCBA Real Property" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to realprop+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<mailto:realprop+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/realprop/MW3PR13MB39803778C6FA6E37554FD196D27D9%40MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Frealprop%2FMW3PR13MB39803778C6FA6E37554FD196D27D9%2540MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dfooter&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cce3ce339c1004c37b63008d8f3d57505%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637527445403950394%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rofbwfkmkDR96SsGoMR7%2F9I1JUy1hNkJ58dsxkdBoVc%3D&reserved=0>.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/305fd670/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 14264 bytes
> Desc: image001.jpg
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/305fd670/image001-0001.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 22:40:10 +0000
> From: Dwight Bickel <dwight at dwightbickel.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
> Affidavit
> Message-ID:
> <BN8PR14MB29801B90EB5B54D3AE1648D3BF7A9 at BN8PR14MB2980.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The lawyers mostly did not perceive the extent of change when the Dept. of Revenue expanded the affidavit requirement of WAC 458-61A-303. The objection of Washington Land Title Ass?n was the only public comment.
>
> The DOR position and interpretation is simple. There should be an excise tax affidavit for every change of ownership of real property. Changes by operation of law (like inheritance), changes due to court orders (like partition, divorce, quiet title, probate) and changes due to transfers of ownership (like mergers and distributions), which previously did not require recording, usually were exempt from the real estate sales tax, now require an excise tax affidavit.
>
> Another Dept. of Revenue change was accomplished without objection by the Bar when DOR changed RCW 82.45.197 to require excise tax to be paid if there was not a specific WAC stating it was exempt. That change allowed the Grant County Treasurer to charge that sales tax for property inherited without a probate. Though a statute exempted inheritance, the WAC only allowed an exemption with documentation from a probate. He testified at the Legislature that every transfer of ownership due to death legally requires a probate. I was there to disagree, but lost every public debate. He collected from many heirs; often massive taxes due to the value of agricultural land. A 2016 change sponsored by the Washington Land Title Ass?n fixed that incorrect interpretation.
>
> That is why we now have to have affidavits and $10 fees though such transfers are not taxable sales, and we now have to record documents about such changes of ownership.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210402/283f2387/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 00:25:16 +0000
> From: Sangeeta Saigal <attorney at sangeetasaigal.com>
> To: "wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>,
> "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Business Attorney
> Message-ID: <A7EE45FB-6FCD-4402-BE4F-5D0C7F11D476 at sangeetasaigal.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Happy Friday!
>
> Have a PC who needs assistance to franchise their business.
>
> Would appreciate any recommendations or self referrals I can pass on to PC.
>
> Thanks in advance for your response.
>
> Have a great weekend.
>
> Sangeeta
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 17:57:40 -0700
> From: "John J. Sullivan" <sullaw at comcast.net>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Cc: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Business Attorney
> Message-ID: <E5A68749-BAB9-4C07-8C42-01268BF1520D at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sangeeta:
>
> I?d call Gary Duvall. He may be retiring. But he?ll know who?s good in town. We worked together at Stoel a long time ago. Looks like he ended up at Dorsey.
>
> https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98104-wa-gary-duvall-7389.html
>
> John J. Sullivan
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 2, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Sangeeta Saigal <attorney at sangeetasaigal.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?Happy Friday!
>>
>> Have a PC who needs assistance to franchise their business.
>>
>> Would appreciate any recommendations or self referrals I can pass on to PC.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your response.
>>
>> Have a great weekend.
>>
>> Sangeeta
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> ***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/20210402/36405406/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 04:31:27 +0000
> From: "Gregory L. Ursich" <gursich at insleebest.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
> Affidavit
> Message-ID:
> <DM5PR17MB1499A46C3A01E89F13E9BC29DC799 at DM5PR17MB1499.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> So Dwight: If we now have a quiet title judgment after an adverse possession lawsuit, we need to file a REETA when the judgment gets recorded??
>
> [cid:image003.jpg at 01D72807.6B6E6CC0]
> 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 Dwight Bickel
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2021 3:40 PM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit
>
> The lawyers mostly did not perceive the extent of change when the Dept. of Revenue expanded the affidavit requirement of WAC 458-61A-303. The objection of Washington Land Title Ass?n was the only public comment.
>
> The DOR position and interpretation is simple. There should be an excise tax affidavit for every change of ownership of real property. Changes by operation of law (like inheritance), changes due to court orders (like partition, divorce, quiet title, probate) and changes due to transfers of ownership (like mergers and distributions), which previously did not require recording, usually were exempt from the real estate sales tax, now require an excise tax affidavit.
>
> Another Dept. of Revenue change was accomplished without objection by the Bar when DOR changed RCW 82.45.197 to require excise tax to be paid if there was not a specific WAC stating it was exempt. That change allowed the Grant County Treasurer to charge that sales tax for property inherited without a probate. Though a statute exempted inheritance, the WAC only allowed an exemption with documentation from a probate. He testified at the Legislature that every transfer of ownership due to death legally requires a probate. I was there to disagree, but lost every public debate. He collected from many heirs; often massive taxes due to the value of agricultural land. A 2016 change sponsored by the Washington Land Title Ass?n fixed that incorrect interpretation.
>
> That is why we now have to have affidavits and $10 fees though such transfers are not taxable sales, and we now have to record documents about such changes of ownership.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210403/18223509/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/20210403/18223509/image003-0001.jpg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 06:35:09 -0700
> From: Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net>
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
> Affidavit
> Message-ID: <6cffd28c-98af-8b1d-85bb-9bbc9a4f3ad8 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> The requirement of a real estate excise tax affidavit isn't all that
> bad.? By analogy you have to file an income tax return even if you don't
> owe any tax.? The alternative for deed recording and REET is training
> staff on every possible exception to REET, which seems problematic for
> many reasons.
>
> It's the $10 fee that is objectionable.? You're basically paying $10 to
> make the government's job easier (or where REET is due to pay the REET).
>
> Next they'll start charging $10 for the abbreviated legal description.?
> /sarc
>
> Kary L. Krismer
>
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 4/2/2021 3:40 PM, Dwight Bickel wrote:
>>
>> The lawyers mostly did not perceive the extent of change when the
>> Dept. of Revenue expanded the affidavit requirement of WAC
>> 458-61A-303. The objection of Washington Land Title Ass?n was the only
>> public comment.
>>
>> The DOR position and interpretation is simple. There should be an
>> excise tax affidavit for every change of ownership of real property.
>> Changes by operation of law (like inheritance), changes due to court
>> orders (like partition, divorce, quiet title, probate) and changes due
>> to transfers of ownership (like mergers and distributions), which
>> previously did not require recording, usually were exempt from the
>> real estate sales tax, now require an excise tax affidavit.
>>
>> Another Dept. of Revenue change was accomplished without objection by
>> the Bar when DOR changed RCW 82.45.197 to require excise tax to be
>> paid if there was not a specific WAC stating it was exempt. That
>> change allowed the Grant County Treasurer to charge that sales tax for
>> property inherited without a probate. Though a statute exempted
>> inheritance, the WAC only allowed an exemption with documentation from
>> a probate. He testified at the Legislature that every transfer of
>> ownership due to death legally requires a probate. I was there to
>> disagree, but lost every public debate. He collected from many heirs;
>> often massive taxes due to the value of agricultural land. A 2016
>> change sponsored by the Washington Land Title Ass?n fixed that
>> incorrect interpretation.
>>
>> That is why we now have to have affidavits and $10 fees though such
>> transfers are not taxable sales, and we now have to record documents
>> about such changes of ownership.
>>
>>
>> ***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/20210403/3d478bf0/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 18:27:08 +0000
> From: Dwight Bickel <dwight at dwightbickel.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Background of Need for Real Estate Excise Tax
> Affidavit
> Message-ID:
> <BN8PR14MB2980277BBA49375EAD36E520BF799 at BN8PR14MB2980.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If the quiet title decree is filed in the Superior Court located in the same county as the property, there is nothing accomplished by recording the decree.
>
> Presuming you don?t have to record the decree, you still may be required to complete and deliver a real estate excise tax affidavit. If the decree transfers ?ownership or title to real property,? then WAC 458-61A-303 (2) states you must complete a REET affidavit, which will claim exemption from the tax.
>
> The REET affidavit is not required just because there is a decree. Many quiet title decrees do not transfer ownership. For example, a decree terminating a mortgage does not change ownership. A decree establishing an easement does not change ownership. A decree ordering a sale of property owned by tenants in common does not change ownership.
>
> Arguably, a decree confirming adverse possession does not legally transfer ownership. However, DOR will say it does because its opinions and interpretation rely entirely on the recorded documents. A decree that terminates a claim of ownership that is recorded will require a REET affidavit.
>
> A decree entered in a probate that confirms intestate inheritance by two children also does not transfer ownership. However, RCW 82.45.197 (1)(g) specifically requires a REET affidavit and the recording of all documents stated by the statute, (2) requires recording of all documents submitted with the REET affidavit to justify the exemption, and (3)(b)(vi) requires recording of anything else the DOR might request.
>
> But many county employees at their recording office would not expect a REET unless there is a DOCUMENT that is to be recorded. Most are not aware that title to real property can be transferred without a recording. Remember, the DOR may make the rules, but that person interprets the rules and they often choose not to follow their own rules. So, Greg, my answer is that you ask that person and do what that person requires.
>
> Dwight A. Bickel
> Real Property Title Advisor
> Washington Title Professional
> Dwight at DwightBickel.com<mailto:Dwight at DwightBickel.com>
> https:/dwightbickel.com
>
> On Behalf Of Gregory L. Ursich
>
> So Dwight: If we now have a quiet title judgment after an adverse possession lawsuit, we need to file a REETA when the judgment gets recorded?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210403/ded9e163/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 79, Issue 5
> *************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210404/1da151c9/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list