[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 83, Issue 15

Fri Aug 13 12:14:05 PDT 2021

Timothy,     Regarding your 60 versus 90 day issue. I had a similar situation. The court rule that the service of the notice was proper and effective, but was deemed amended by the statute, and therefore continued the hearing one month. Knowing how judges are stuck trying to interpret this stuff, I thought it was a good pragmatic result. The NW Justice project argued the  notice and the entire UD action were ineffective.      Interestingly to me, there is the thought that the new statutes overrode the earlier proclamations, but then the bridge proclamation overrules the statutes. That seems inconsistent to me.      What we are telling people is, find a reason other than the payment of rent to terminate the tenancy. 
Steve

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: Fri, Aug 13, 2021 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 83, Issue 15

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. Erroneous Deeds-Title gurus (Paul Neumiller)
  2. Re: City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles
      Occupied by Homeless? (deborah at neillaw.com)
  3. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13 (Stephen Whitehouse)
  4. Retroactive application of HB 1236 re Notice (Timothy Lehr)
  5. Re: Erroneous Deeds-Title gurus (John McCrady)
  6. Re: Retroactive application of HB 1236 re Notice (Kaitlyn Jackson)
  7. Public access to creeks (Craig Gourley)
  8. Re: Public access to creeks (John McCrady)
  9. Re: Public access to creeks (Dean Prather)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:28:35 +0000
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Erroneous Deeds-Title gurus
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR13MB3980DF3B9F25B7428B11BD57D2F99 at MW3PR13MB3980.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Mom signs deeds (prepared by an attorney, no less) that state that Mom, as trustee of the Mom Trust, quitclaims real property to Mom, as manager of the Mom LLC.  HUH?!?!?!?  Ok, the Mom LLC is properly formed with Mom as manager but Mom does not hold any LLC units.  Mom is elderly and the family wants to take advantage of the step-up in basis for the real property.  My conclusion is that the deeds are erroneous because the LLC is a legal entity and can take ownership in the real properties outright.  The deeds should not have said to Mom as manager of the Mom LLC but simply to the Mom LLC directly.  And my quick research indicates that a member in a LLC does get a step up in basis but only to the extent of that one member (and surviving spouse) BUT, remember, Mom is only the manager and not a beneficial member of the LLC.

So, the family and Mom wants the real property cleanly BACK into the Mom Trust.  Should the family:  1) do nothing because the deeds from Mom as trustee to Mom as manager of the LLC will have no legal impact (seems risky, maybe a court will say the deeds are wrong but the default is that MOM holds the property outright) OR 2) record deeds from Mom as manager of the LLC to Mom as Trustee of the Mom Trust?  If we record new deeds, what exemption is there for the real estate excise tax?  Correction deed?  Gift deed?  Say we are only unringing the bell?

[Paul A_ Neumiller2]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/3aa2e0c7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14843 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/3aa2e0c7/image001-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:42:00 -0700
From: "deborah at neillaw.com" <deborah at neillaw.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: <C43D008C-FBF9-4777-BE0B-98EEA92F6561 at neillaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I am not sure I understand the Court?s interpretation of 6.13.  I read RCW 6.13.010 to say that a homestead can be real or personal property the owner uses as a residence.  An owner is not required to claim the homestead exemption if the real or personal property is a house or mobile home (not a truck).  For personal property that qualifies as a homestead (like a truck), the owner needs to make the declaration.  

The Court seems to be saying that any real or personal property used as a residence is automatically a homestead, not just houses and mobile homes.  Doesn?t that make the declaration requirement superfluous?

Deborah Jameson
(Pronouns: she/her/hers)

Neil & Neil, P.S.
5302 Pacific Avenue
Tacoma, WA  98408
253-475-8600
253-473-5746 FAX

If your matter is urgent, please call my office.  Also, this message is not encrypted and it may not be secure or protected by attorney-client privilege.

On Aug 12, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com> wrote:

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 <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 <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. 
***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 <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/3af1bbc4/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:58:43 +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 83, Issue 13
Message-ID: <1854816706.46524.1628801923765 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:23:29 +0000
From: Timothy Lehr <timothy at stileslaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Retroactive application of HB 1236 re Notice
Message-ID:
    <DM5PR22MB00740C0A12C6802BF7A8CD18A1F99 at DM5PR22MB0074.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

All,

I have an upcoming hearing where the issue is one that I've been interested to see how courts are deciding it. That is, if we don't reach an agreement first.

LL served a 60 day notice of intent to sell on T before HB 1236 was signed into law. Normally I would have advised LL to supplement the notice to comply with the new 90 day requirement, but LL didn't come to see me until the 11th hour and a sale is set to close. Anyway, a complaint was filed based on T not vacating by the 60 days. The obvious question is whether HB 1236 retroactively applies to notices served under good law before it was enacted. HB 1236 does not expressly say it applies retroactively, as the legislature has does in the past with other statutes (RCW 49.62). I've also found a line of cases discussing when a statute or amendment to a statute applies retroactively.

I've seen letters sent out from the NW Justice Project on behalf of tenants plainly stating that 60 day notices are ineffective due to the new law, but I've never seen an actual argument based in law.

I'm wondering if anyone has litigated this issue yet and how it turned out or heard about how courts are approaching it? I imagine there are numerous situations similar to this that have occurred recently.

Thanks,

Timothy C. Lehr
Attorney at Law

[cid:image002.jpg at 01D78F85.9E685920]

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/1c537e2f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5083 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/1c537e2f/image002-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:49:36 +0000
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Erroneous Deeds-Title gurus
Message-ID: <917c9ef2348d4f64aa13d9cad3c511e0 at PST-MAIL.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The deed was certainly created amiss, but I don't think the LLC's intended interest can be ignored.  If Mom and Mom's family want title back in the Trust I would think that a deed from Mom LLC to the Mom as Trustee of the Mom trust would be in order.  Perhaps WAC 458-61A-211 (5) has the flexibility to fit your fact pattern.

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com<mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
[Picture4]
Beginning July 26, 2021, recording fees for most documents recorded in Washington will increase by $100<https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/105275/Recording-Fee-Schedule-Effective-Jul-25-2021->. Please be sure to collect recording fees accordingly. Due to the above increase, our Reconveyance fees will also be increased by $100.00

WARNING-FRAUDULENT FUNDING INSTRUCTIONS
Email hacking and fraud are on the rise to fraudulently misdirect funds.  Please call your escrow officer immediately using contact information found from an independent source, such as the sales contract or internet, to verify any funding instructions received.  We are not responsible for any wire sent by you to an incorrect bank account.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 1:29 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Erroneous Deeds-Title gurus

Mom signs deeds (prepared by an attorney, no less) that state that Mom, as trustee of the Mom Trust, quitclaims real property to Mom, as manager of the Mom LLC.  HUH?!?!?!?  Ok, the Mom LLC is properly formed with Mom as manager but Mom does not hold any LLC units.  Mom is elderly and the family wants to take advantage of the step-up in basis for the real property.  My conclusion is that the deeds are erroneous because the LLC is a legal entity and can take ownership in the real properties outright.  The deeds should not have said to Mom as manager of the Mom LLC but simply to the Mom LLC directly.  And my quick research indicates that a member in a LLC does get a step up in basis but only to the extent of that one member (and surviving spouse) BUT, remember, Mom is only the manager and not a beneficial member of the LLC.

So, the family and Mom wants the real property cleanly BACK into the Mom Trust.  Should the family:  1) do nothing because the deeds from Mom as trustee to Mom as manager of the LLC will have no legal impact (seems risky, maybe a court will say the deeds are wrong but the default is that MOM holds the property outright) OR 2) record deeds from Mom as manager of the LLC to Mom as Trustee of the Mom Trust?  If we record new deeds, what exemption is there for the real estate excise tax?  Correction deed?  Gift deed?  Say we are only unringing the bell?

[Paul A_ Neumiller2]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/9a8f80eb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11858 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/9a8f80eb/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/9a8f80eb/image003-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:24:36 -0700
From: Kaitlyn Jackson <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Retroactive application of HB 1236 re Notice
Message-ID:
    <CAO+NF_5S5cDWvHawXya_TYCytW5yTREAvbbVXN3btsS1MtPwsw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Timothy -

*Dzaman vs. Gowman* (attached). Christopher Cutting analyzed it when it
came down so I'm "borrowing" some of his analysis in the name of efficiency
here. *NJP has been arguing that 1236 is retroactive. *

In Dzaman, the timeline was:

? 6/29/2020 landlord issues 60 day notice without an affidavit;

? 10/1/2020 case proceeds to trial and landlord wins (presumably an oral
decision);

? 10/14/2020 the Governor changes the rules (20-19.4) to create the
affidavit requirement;

? 10/16/2020 the court enters findings, conclusions, and a judgment based
on compliance with 20-19.3

? 10/29/2020 the court issues a writ of restitution

The court's ruling that the writ could not be enforced was based on the
portion of 20-19.4 which prohibited landlords from "enforcing... judicial
eviction orders" unless the affidavit existed. Separately, the court held
that "applying Proclamation 20-19.4 here *does not affect the trial court?s
decision finding Gowman guilty of unlawful detainer or the validity of the
trial court?s October 16 judgment*."

NJP has been arguing that if the law changes before the judgment is
entered, the case stops being valid at that point. This court specifically
addressed that issue and said "applying Proclamation 20-19.4 here *does not
affect the trial court?s decision finding Gowman guilty of unlawful
detainer *or the validity of the trial court?s October 16 judgment.
Proclamation 20-19.4 simply prevents Dzaman from enforcing that judgment by
obtaining a writ of restitution for a certain period of time." That
judgment was issued *after *Proclamation 20-19.4 was issued, meaning this
case is directly contrary to NJP's position.

HOWEVER, I know that some commissioners have been either ignoring this law
and agreeing with HJP or choosing not to interpret the holding the same
way. It's a crap shoot. In your case, I would assume that you have a very
tough case ahead of you if the defendant was not at least granted an
additional 30 days before the complaint was started because you would lose
the "tenant hasn't been prejudiced" argument.

Kaitlyn

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 2:26 PM Timothy Lehr <timothy at stileslaw.com> wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> I have an upcoming hearing where the issue is one that I?ve been
> interested to see how courts are deciding it. That is, if we don?t reach an
> agreement first.
>
>
>
> LL served a 60 day notice of intent to sell on T before HB 1236 was signed
> into law. Normally I would have advised LL to supplement the notice to
> comply with the new 90 day requirement, but LL didn?t come to see me until
> the 11th hour and a sale is set to close. Anyway, a complaint was filed
> based on T not vacating by the 60 days. The obvious question is whether HB
> 1236 retroactively applies to notices served under good law before it was
> enacted. HB 1236 does not expressly say it applies retroactively, as the
> legislature has does in the past with other statutes (RCW 49.62). I?ve also
> found a line of cases discussing when a statute or amendment to a statute
> applies retroactively.
>
>
>
> I?ve seen letters sent out from the NW Justice Project on behalf of
> tenants plainly stating that 60 day notices are ineffective due to the new
> law, but I?ve never seen an actual argument based in law.
>
>
>
> I?m wondering if anyone has litigated this issue yet and how it turned out
> or heard about how courts are approaching it? I imagine there are numerous
> situations similar to this that have occurred recently.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> *Timothy C. Lehr*
>
> Attorney at Law
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ***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

-- 
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

Covid-19 Update - Dimension Law Group remains available to serve our
clients and the public during this time, subject to the orders and
recommendations of government authority.

All attorneys and staff are working remotely regular business hours and are
available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. We
will continue to advise and support our clients throughout this health
emergency.

-- 
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/20210812/8e947e64/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5083 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/8e947e64/image002-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dzaman vs Gowman_D2 55460-7-II Published Opinion.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 281781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210812/8e947e64/DzamanvsGowman_D255460-7-IIPublishedOpinion-0001.pdf>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:44:36 +0000
From: Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Public access to creeks
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR12MB4362D24BD8D0244CA8FB2BC5AEFA9 at MW3PR12MB4362.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Listmates  While I am sure that different waterways have different rules ( navigable v. non navigable for example) is anyone familiar with any rule that says the state owns or has rights over 30 feet on each side on a non navigable stream?  Client has neighbors claiming they can use 30 feet of his property adjoining the water for their drunken frolics as it is "state land".  Never heard of that before. Anyone else?

GOURLEY LAW GROUP
THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION
SNOHOMISH ESCROW
P.O. Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
PH:  (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401
Fax: (360) 568-8092

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210813/0a23860b/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:01:58 +0000
From: John McCrady <j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Public access to creeks
Message-ID: <e77580eefeec480e8688836328e3ff5f at PST-MAIL.pstitle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Generally the state owns the bed of a navigable stream and the upland owner has riparian rights to the stream.
On a non-navigable stream the upland owner is presumed to have title to the thread of the stream and other owners have riparian rights to the stream.
I don't know of any general rule matching what the neighbors are claiming, but perhaps a look at your client's title policy would give some clarification.
I wonder whether the neighbor is confusing planning issues (set-backs, wetland rules etc.) with ownership issues.

John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98467
253-476-5721
j.mccrady at pstitle.com<mailto:j.mccrady at pstitle.com>
[Picture4]
Beginning July 26, 2021, recording fees for most documents recorded in Washington will increase by $100<https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/105275/Recording-Fee-Schedule-Effective-Jul-25-2021->. Please be sure to collect recording fees accordingly. Due to the above increase, our Reconveyance fees will also be increased by $100.00

WARNING-FRAUDULENT FUNDING INSTRUCTIONS
Email hacking and fraud are on the rise to fraudulently misdirect funds.  Please call your escrow officer immediately using contact information found from an independent source, such as the sales contract or internet, to verify any funding instructions received.  We are not responsible for any wire sent by you to an incorrect bank account.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 10:45 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Public access to creeks

Listmates  While I am sure that different waterways have different rules ( navigable v. non navigable for example) is anyone familiar with any rule that says the state owns or has rights over 30 feet on each side on a non navigable stream?  Client has neighbors claiming they can use 30 feet of his property adjoining the water for their drunken frolics as it is "state land".  Never heard of that before. Anyone else?

GOURLEY LAW GROUP
THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION
SNOHOMISH ESCROW
P.O. Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
PH:  (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401
Fax: (360) 568-8092

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210813/80c9f4ac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11867 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210813/80c9f4ac/image001-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 18:04:43 +0000
From: Dean Prather <deanprather at hotmail.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>,
    "craig at glgmail.com" <craig at glgmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Public access to creeks
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR13MB4058BCC4F338004E46EF349EA9FA9 at MW3PR13MB4058.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Craig,

My understanding is that if the stream was navigable on the date of statehood (11/11/1889) then the state owns the bed of the stream. If the stream is not navigable, the abutting uplands owners own the bed of the stream. There is no "30 foot" rule of state ownership that I have ever heard about, and no state ownership of a non-navigable stream. The partiers should probably be trespassed by law enforcement.

Dean Prather, Esq.

DEAN PRATHER ESQ. PLLC

(360) 643-0499 (call/text)

(360) 925-3583 (fax)

deanprather at hotmail.com<mailto:deanprather at hotmail.com>

www.deanpratheresquire.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deanpratheresquire.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C07a525620e154d6e9b7f08d94097840f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637611841764908976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ceInIcWj%2F%2BAXi3mg4NqtoApj4EFhlp0N1z4iyt82mCI%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 10:44 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Public access to creeks

Listmates  While I am sure that different waterways have different rules ( navigable v. non navigable for example) is anyone familiar with any rule that says the state owns or has rights over 30 feet on each side on a non navigable stream?  Client has neighbors claiming they can use 30 feet of his property adjoining the water for their drunken frolics as it is ?state land?.  Never heard of that before. Anyone else?

GOURLEY LAW GROUP

THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION

SNOHOMISH ESCROW

P.O. Box 1091

Snohomish, WA 98291

PH:  (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401

Fax: (360) 568-8092

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210813/75d93ae2/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 15
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210813/ddde171c/attachment.html>