[WSBARP] Property owner’s intent to personally occupy

[Tom Lee]

Eric - May issue both types of notices, but move under
significant/immediate threat first? I've been successful with these
significant and immediate threat evictions in SW WA by going into these
with extremely thorough documentation. The courts are fairly sympathetic
when the complaint is thorough, well-documented, and presents clear
rationale for why a tenant's behavior is a significant and immediate
threat. I'm sure there's an argument(s) to spin here, like you hinted at,
re lack of plumbing; alternatively, tenant behavior. Police reports are
gold in the latter realm, too.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 3:25 PM Eric Lanza <eric at buzzardlaw.com> wrote:

> Hello listserv,
>
>
>
> PC has a “she-shed” in her back yard that is set up to be her home
> office/workspace.
>
>
>
> Shed is insulated, has electricity/internet, but no plumbing. The shed is
> really not suitable for stand-alone habitation as a dwelling.
>
>
>
> PC had an acquaintance who had fallen on hard times--she offered to let
> friend stay in the “shed” in the back yard.
>
>
>
> Surprise surprise…things aren’t going so well. Acquaintance is not being
> very respectful of PC’s property, nor is the acquaintance being very nice
> to PC---PC is now afraid to step out into her back yard.
>
>
>
> Arguably, I could assert imminent threat to health and safety (I don’t
> know what they are doing about lack of plumbing, but can only assume it
> isn’t sanitary)…but I’ve danced that dance a few times over the past 12
> months and know it can be a hard evidentiary bar to meet at trial.
>
>
>
> PC would like to reclaim this shed as her workspace/home office. 60 day
> notice of owners intent to occupy appropriate? PC won’t be “moving in” to
> the shed, but the shed was (is?) part of her primary residence.
>
>
>
> I can think of arguments for and against the 60 day, but wanted to see if
> anyone has any experience with a similar fact pattern.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Eric J. Lanza, J.D.
>
>
>
>
> ***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



-- 

*TOM LEE*

Attorney

*R. THOMAS LEE, PLLC* | Attorney and Counselor at Law | A Professional
Limited Liability Company

Direct: 425-219-6736

rtl at rtleelaw.attorney | website: www.rtleelaw.attorney

This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission
may contain *Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or confidential
information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above*.  If
you are not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby notified that
any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached documentation is strictly
prohibited and may result in legal action against you.  Please reply to the
Sender advising the Sender of the error in transmission and immediately
destroy the message and any accompanying documents.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210412/4a2426f3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210412/4a2426f3/image001-0001.png>