[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13
Stephen Whitehouse
swhite8893 at aol.com
Thu Aug 12 13:58:43 PDT 2021
I read the case quickly this morning. My take is, they can still tow. The issue is what they charge. Their ordinance used the word "penalty" and that seemed to be a determining factor. I am not sure how since their was a small fine and the rest was for the towing. So even though the word was in the ordinance, there was only a small fine. Also, while the commented heavily about the homestead issue, they said it did not come into play because the city was not trying to deprive the plaintiff of the trailer.
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave. Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885swhite8893 at aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 12, 2021 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13
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: City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles
Occupied by Homeless? (michael westseattleattorney.com)
2. Re: City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles
Occupied by Homeless? (Andrew Hay)
3. Re: Construction Contract Question (Peter Crocker)
4. Re: Construction Contract Question (Douglas Scott)
5. Off Topic - Referral for SSDI Claim (Rich Busch)
6. Re: Off Topic - Referral for SSDI Claim (Sarah McCarthy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:22:09 +0000
From: "michael westseattleattorney.com"
<michael at westseattleattorney.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow
Vehicles Occupied by Homeless?
Message-ID:
<DM6PR05MB65556607E44DDBA9E6682557B7F99 at DM6PR05MB6555.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Yep, if they tow it they will have to be a custodian of it too ; so can't tow it to the next county - maybe they could if they transport the owner there and have them sign a waiver , release?
[cid:9823e106-d9d3-4765-b111-d06fb57447ec]
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Rob Rowley <rob at rowleylegal.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 8:45 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles Occupied by Homeless?
It strikes me that this ruling will prevent municipalities from towing any abandoned vehicle for fear of someone claiming it was their homestead? Am I reading too much into this?
How about private owners being able to exercise right of private tow on their own properties for fear of a claim of a homestead exemption?
New Supreme Court Opinions as of Thursday, August 12
Aug. 12, 2021 - 98824-2 - City of Seattle v. Long
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=988242MAJ
?Simply put, the homestead act was intended to provide shelter for families. Macumber v. Shafer, 96 Wn.2d 568, 570, 637 P.2d 645 (1981) (citing Clark v. Davis, 37 Wn.2d 850, 226 P.2d 904 (1951)). The act bars the city from towing a vehicle that is occupied as a primary residence and from forcing an individual to agree to a payment plan to prevent that vehicle from being sold at a public auction. With these observations, I respectfully concur.?
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D78F55.CCE17A00]
Robert R Rowley
Attorney & Counselor at Law
[cid:image002.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00] (509) 252-5074<tel:(509)%20252-5074> [cid:image003.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00] (509) 994-1143<tel:(509)%20994-1143>
[cid:image004.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00] (509) 928-3084 [cid:image005.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00] rowleylegal.com<http://www.rowleylegal.com/>
[cid:image006.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00] rob at rowleylegal.com<mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com>
Helping You Protect What Matters Most
[cid:image007.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00]<https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal> [cid:image008.png at 01D78F55.CCE17A00] <https://www.twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>
Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in Washington and Idaho.
NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protections. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance. DISCLAIMER: You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very well reach a different conclusion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33870 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1761 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 416 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 614 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 573 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image005-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1750 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image006-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 617 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image007-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 795 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/image008-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-p1b3k1w2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 57245 bytes
Desc: Outlook-p1b3k1w2.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/c4dd5a58/Outlook-p1b3k1w2-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:26:58 +0000
From: Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow
Vehicles Occupied by Homeless?
Message-ID:
<MW3PR13MB3993D8A93DF0D40AF5D97C5EB2F99 at MW3PR13MB3993.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Also significant mention of the need to consider ability to pay when imposing fines and $547 was excessive. This will send a ripple through the courts.
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kaitlyn Jackson
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 10:12 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles Occupied by Homeless?
This is unbelievable. The implications go far beyond just a vehicle, right?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 12, 2021, at 8:48 AM, Rob Rowley <rob at rowleylegal.com<mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com>> wrote:
?
It strikes me that this ruling will prevent municipalities from towing any abandoned vehicle for fear of someone claiming it was their homestead? Am I reading too much into this?
How about private owners being able to exercise right of private tow on their own properties for fear of a claim of a homestead exemption?
New Supreme Court Opinions as of Thursday, August 12
Aug. 12, 2021 - 98824-2 - City of Seattle v. Long
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=988242MAJ
?Simply put, the homestead act was intended to provide shelter for families. Macumber v. Shafer, 96 Wn.2d 568, 570, 637 P.2d 645 (1981) (citing Clark v. Davis, 37 Wn.2d 850, 226 P.2d 904 (1951)). The act bars the city from towing a vehicle that is occupied as a primary residence and from forcing an individual to agree to a payment plan to prevent that vehicle from being sold at a public auction. With these observations, I respectfully concur.?
<image001.jpg>
Robert R Rowley
Attorney & Counselor at Law
<image002.png>
(509) 252-5074<tel:(509)%20252-5074>
<image003.png>
(509) 994-1143<tel:(509)%20994-1143>
<image004.png>
(509) 928-3084<fax:(509)%20928-3084>
<image005.png>
rowleylegal.com<http://www.rowleylegal.com/>
<image006.png>
rob at rowleylegal.com<mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com>
Helping You Protect What Matters Most
<image007.png><https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal>
<image008.png><https://www.twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>
Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in Washington and Idaho.
NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protections. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance. DISCLAIMER: You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very well reach a different conclusion.
***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
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/20210812/92e65ef6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:37:31 -0700
From: Peter Crocker <peterecrocker at gmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Construction Contract Question
Message-ID:
<CAOx53QgwK2LArhrBHjC9FQRjFwhRKrXtSOXZupEpkjZN_nX59w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I'd think about the duty of good faith and fair dealing, for sure, because
the contractor had it in his power to control how much it cost. That being
said, I'd also want to be real sure that PC hadn't agreed to any changes,
that the scope as completed was consistent with the scope agreed-upon in
the contract, or that the PC hadn't created any conditions that led to cost
increases. If the cost increases were due to covid-related issues that OP
couldn't have known about when preparing the estimate, PC might have to be
willing to make certain allowances for cost increases, but 5x definitely
seems excessive.
Sincerely,
Peter
Law Office of Peter Crocker, PLLC
210 Polk St., Ste. 6A
Port Townsend, WA 98368
peter at petercrockerlaw.com
360-344-8474
*** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.
This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that
you have received this communication in error, please do not print,
copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also,
please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in
error, and destroy the copy you received.***
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:47 AM Gabriel Dietz <gabrieldietz at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, the contractor is licensed and bonded.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Gabriel A. Dietz
> Partner
>
> Hoerschelmann Dietz PLLC
> (206) 451-3859
>
> *gabe at hdpnw.com <gabe at hdpnw.com>*
>
> *www.hdpnw.com <http://www.hdpnw.com/>*
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 8:19 AM Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Have you checked to see if the contractor is licensed and bonded. Unless
>> something has changed since I stopped practicing, that's a very good
>> defense.
>>
>> Kary L. Krismer
>> 206 723-2148
>>
>> On 8/12/2021 7:45 AM, Gabriel Dietz wrote:
>>
>> Good Morning Listmates,
>>
>>
>> This is a somewhat new situation to me but may be routine practice for
>> some of you. Potential client, a single family residence owner, signed a
>> cost plus construction contract for a contractor to do a relatively small
>> job. The contract had an estimated price written in. Contractor's invoice
>> was five times the estimate. During the job there were some discussions
>> between contractor and PC about change in means but never any discussions
>> about an increase in price. What defenses, if any, does PC have?
>>
>> Thank you in advance,
>>
>>
>> Gabriel A. Dietz
>> Partner
>>
>> Hoerschelmann Dietz PLLC
>> (206) 451-3859
>>
>> *gabe at hdpnw.com <gabe at hdpnw.com>*
>>
>> *www.hdpnw.com <http://www.hdpnw.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 listWSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.comhttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>>
>> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
>> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
>> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
>> others.***
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WSBARP mailing list
>> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/5b6486c5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:46:09 -0700
From: Douglas Scott <doug at rainieradvocates.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Construction Contract Question
Message-ID:
<CANnLPWCU5ynjdy=t_HWC0S9iDby851ttohJbi3rg_0F6Y5nJmw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The contract price is based upon the cost of construction. Be sure to get
all of the invoices and receipts from the contractor which show the
"actual" costs that the contractor incurred. If the contractor paid
himself and his workers for time spent, then get substantiation for that as
well.
*DOUGLAS W. SCOTT*
Rainier Legal Advocates|LLC
465 Rainier Blvd. N., Suite C
Issaquah, Washington 98027
425.392.8550 (tel)
425.392.2829 (fax)
www.rainieradvocates.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 Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:39 AM Peter Crocker <peterecrocker at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'd think about the duty of good faith and fair dealing, for sure, because
> the contractor had it in his power to control how much it cost. That being
> said, I'd also want to be real sure that PC hadn't agreed to any changes,
> that the scope as completed was consistent with the scope agreed-upon in
> the contract, or that the PC hadn't created any conditions that led to cost
> increases. If the cost increases were due to covid-related issues that OP
> couldn't have known about when preparing the estimate, PC might have to be
> willing to make certain allowances for cost increases, but 5x definitely
> seems excessive.
>
> Sincerely,
> Peter
>
> Law Office of Peter Crocker, PLLC
> 210 Polk St., Ste. 6A
> Port Townsend, WA 98368
> peter at petercrockerlaw.com
> 360-344-8474
>
> *** NOTICE: ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION - PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL.
> This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that
> you have received this communication in error, please do not print,
> copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also,
> please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in
> error, and destroy the copy you received.***
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:47 AM Gabriel Dietz <gabrieldietz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the contractor is licensed and bonded.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>> Gabriel A. Dietz
>> Partner
>>
>> Hoerschelmann Dietz PLLC
>> (206) 451-3859
>>
>> *gabe at hdpnw.com <gabe at hdpnw.com>*
>>
>> *www.hdpnw.com <http://www.hdpnw.com/>*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 8:19 AM Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you checked to see if the contractor is licensed and bonded.
>>> Unless something has changed since I stopped practicing, that's a very good
>>> defense.
>>>
>>> Kary L. Krismer
>>> 206 723-2148
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2021 7:45 AM, Gabriel Dietz wrote:
>>>
>>> Good Morning Listmates,
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a somewhat new situation to me but may be routine practice for
>>> some of you. Potential client, a single family residence owner, signed a
>>> cost plus construction contract for a contractor to do a relatively small
>>> job. The contract had an estimated price written in. Contractor's invoice
>>> was five times the estimate. During the job there were some discussions
>>> between contractor and PC about change in means but never any discussions
>>> about an increase in price. What defenses, if any, does PC have?
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>>
>>>
>>> Gabriel A. Dietz
>>> Partner
>>>
>>> Hoerschelmann Dietz PLLC
>>> (206) 451-3859
>>>
>>> *gabe at hdpnw.com <gabe at hdpnw.com>*
>>>
>>> *www.hdpnw.com <http://www.hdpnw.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 listWSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.comhttp://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>>>
>>> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
>>> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
>>> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
>>> others.***
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WSBARP mailing list
>>> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
>>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>>
>> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
>> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
>> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
>> others.***
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WSBARP mailing list
>> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
> ***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/20210812/f2456740/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:42:57 +0000
From: Rich Busch <rich.busch at wirelesscounsel.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Off Topic - Referral for SSDI Claim
Message-ID: <20BE642F-4228-4DB7-B899-C10DAB88A4C0 at wirelesscounsel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Is anyone aware of community or attorney resources to help pursue an SSDI claim for someone who is unable to continue working due to mental health issues? PC can?t afford to pay an attorney to handle an SSDI claim and needs help at little or no cost. Thank you.
Rich
Richard J. Busch
Busch Law Firm PLLC
1420 NW Gilman Blvd #9014
Issaquah, WA 98027
425.458.3940 Office
206.265.3821 Wireless
rich.busch at wirelesscounsel.com<mailto:rich.busch at wirelesscounselcom>
www.wirelesscounsel.com<http://www.wirelesscounsel.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/8e7285e3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:51:43 -0700
From: Sarah McCarthy <sarah at kawlawyers.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Off Topic - Referral for SSDI Claim
Message-ID:
<CAFVmgT=L1azokje4xKbvCV7uPvddp+hDa=yT57stNgE=XCc7_Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Nicole Franklin at Anderson Hunter in Everett handles SSDI appeals. It's my
recollection that it's basically like "contingency fee" for this area of
practice - the attorney gets paid by the government for the fees after a
successful appeal. Nicole is great.
Sarah
*Sarah O?Farrell McCarthy*
*(Pronouns: she / her)*Attorney | Kelly, Arndt & Walker, Attorneys at Law,
PLLP
P.O. Box 290 | 6443 Harding Avenue | Clinton, WA 98236
(Located on Whidbey Island, Island County, Washington)
Phone: (360) 341-1515 | Fax: (360) 341-3272
sarah at kawlawyers.com | www.kawlawyers.com
This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm
of Kelly, Arndt & Walker, PLLP which may be confidential or privileged.
This information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity
named above, If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
further review, disclosure, printing, copying, distribution, or use of the
contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message transmission in error, please notify us immediately by
reply e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you.
We do not accept service of any kind by e-mail unless expressly authorized
in writing by the attorney of record. This e-mail is NOT a contract and is
not binding upon the author pursuant to CR 2A. This e-mail is, at most, a
negotiation under ER 408.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:48 AM Rich Busch <rich.busch at wirelesscounsel.com>
wrote:
> Is anyone aware of community or attorney resources to help pursue an SSDI
> claim for someone who is unable to continue working due to mental health
> issues? PC can?t afford to pay an attorney to handle an SSDI claim and
> needs help at little or no cost. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *Rich*
>
> Richard J. Busch
>
> Busch Law Firm PLLC
>
> 1420 NW Gilman Blvd #9014
>
> Issaquah, WA 98027
>
> 425.458.3940 Office
>
> 206.265.3821 Wireless
>
> rich.busch at wirelesscounsel.com <rich.busch at wirelesscounselcom>
>
> www.wirelesscounsel.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/20210812/53718a7f/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 83, Issue 13
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/592a9434/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list