[WSBARP] City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles Occupied by Homeless?

Fri Aug 13 16:42:41 PDT 2021

The court interpreted the statute to mean that a written declaration of homestead is required only for property that is not presently occupied by the homesteader. If the vehicle is actually being occupied as the owner’s home, then it’s automatically a homestead.

I wonder what the implication is for someone living in a tent on the street. The tent would be homestead property, I think.

HOWEVER the majority opinion was at pains to state that the homestead exemption only protects against seizure of the property in payment of a debt. See page 20. Clearing tents from a park is not seizing the property in order to pay a debt. Towing and impounding a vehicle is not seizing property in order to pay a debt.

Homestead personal property remains subject to laws that authorize removal of property from an improper place. A landowner who arranges for a tow of a vehicle from their property therefore is not affected by homestead rights in the vehicle. The landowner also still has the right to sue the vehicle owner for the cost of towing and obtain a judgment, and try to collect. The homestead exemption means only that the judgment can’t be paid by attaching and selling the homestead vehicle itself.

The court’s decision might be the biggest headache for towing companies and junkyards or impound lots who try to pay their costs by auctioning vehicles. If the vehicle was being actively occupied by someone at the time it was impounded, it’s a homestead, and trying to pay the costs of impoundment by selling it is going to be tricky. Unless they are proceeding pursuant to a type of lien listed in RCW 6.13.080?

Rob Rowley’s original quote from the opinion is actually from the final paragraph of the 3-justice concurrence and is not binding authority. The majority opinion makes clear that towing/impoundment is still allowed.

As Stephen Whitehouse mentioned, the main thrust of the majority opinion is that the impoundment and penalty payment imposed was an excessive fine in violation of Wash. Const. Art. I, Sec. 14, and U.S. Const. amend. VIII. In order to avoid imposing an excessive fine, there must be an ability-to-pay inquiry, which the court suggests should be addressed by a municipal court hearing. See page 42. I’m sure that will thrill the municipal bench—they are just twiddling their thumbs all day anyway, right?

One other thing—the amount of the homestead has changed under the new law, 5408-S.SL<http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5408-S.SL.pdf>. I think I have this right—under the old law, the homestead amount was bifurcated, and was $125,000 for real property but only $15,000 for personal property. That’s the law this opinion applied. But under the new law effective as of May of this year, it doesn’t matter any more whether the homestead is real or personal property; the amount of the exemption is the greater of $125,000 or the “county median sale price of a single-family home in the preceding calendar year.”

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of deborah at neillaw.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 1:42 PM
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?

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<mailto: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

“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
<https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal>
<image007.png><https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal>
  <https://www.twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>
<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 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.
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210813/0d8c0538/attachment.html>