[WSBARP] City of Seattle v Long - No Longer Able to Tow Vehicles Occupied by Homeless?
Kaitlyn Jackson
kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com
Mon Aug 16 11:35:34 PDT 2021
Eric - well done!
The question of houseboats is interesting. What about mobile home parks?
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 11:05 AM Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com> wrote:
> But for those who deal with marinas and moorage, this is a question that
> probably warrants some discussion. As much as providers of moorage would
> like to just cut the lines, it would appear that this scenario would be
> affected by the duties of a marina as a bailee. Further thoughts on this?
>
>
>
>
> *Mark B. Anderson *ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
> 821 Dock St Ste 209 PMB 4-12
> Tacoma, Washington 98402
> +1 253-327-1750
> +1 253-327-1751 (fax)
> marka at mbaesq.com
> www.mbaesq.com
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *This transmission is confidential and is
> intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be
> protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other
> confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
> person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that
> any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750
> that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Roger Hawkes
> *Sent:* Monday, August 16, 2021 9:53 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?
>
>
>
> Provocative thought😊
>
>
>
> Roger Hawkes, WSBA #
> 5173
>
>
>
> *Sultan* Office: 423 Main (physical office)
>
> Box 351, Sultan, WA 98294 (incoming mail)
>
> Sultan, WA 98294
>
>
>
> Shoreline Office: 19944 Ballinger Way NE
>
> Shoreline, WA 98155
>
>
>
> Phone: 206 367 5000; fax: 206 367 4005
>
> Email: roger at law-hawks.com
>
> Web site: www.hawkeslawfirm.com
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Kathleen Hopkins
> *Sent:* Monday, August 16, 2021 9:26 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?
>
>
>
> Following this discussion, what about seizing a live aboard boat for
> nonpayment of moorage fees? Should we just be cutting the lines and
> setting them adrift?
>
>
>
> *Kathleen J. Hopkins *
>
> Real Property Law Group, PLLC
>
> 1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 654
>
> Seattle, WA 98101
>
> Phone & Fax: (206) 625-0404
>
> Home *(please use during pandemic)*: 425-844-2749
>
> email: khopkins at rp-lawgroup.com
>
> www.rp-lawgroup.com
>
>
>
> **Licensed in Washington State.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *This message is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the
> work-product doctrine; if you are not the intended recipient of this
> message please let the sender know you received it in error and please
> delete this message. Thank you.*
>
>
>
> *Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations concerning tax practice, you are
> advised that this message is not intended or written to be used, and it
> cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be
> imposed under any tax laws; or promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. *
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Scott Osborne
> *Sent:* Friday, August 13, 2021 6:14 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 don’t think this is going to be that far reaching, but clearly the
> business model of towing will have to be reconsidered, since the ability to
> recoup costs has been impaired. You would have to ask the City how much
> money is involved. The Court was a lot more circumspect on the subject of
> the reasonableness of towing fees than the superior court, but the message
> is if you tow, you better be prepared to eat the cost. Not good for
> property owners trying to get the city to enforce its parking ordinance.
>
> Scott Osborne
>
>
>
> scott.osborne2 at gmail.com
>
> scott.osborne at foster.com
>
> 206 447-6293 - Direct Line
>
> 206 359-5454 Cell
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2021, at 4:46 PM, Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> *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>
> 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> 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
>
> <image003.png>
>
> (509) 994-1143
>
> <image004.png>
>
> (509) 928-3084
>
> <image005.png>
>
> rowleylegal.com <http://www.rowleylegal.com/>
>
> <image006.png>
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
--
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/20210816/2e6843b6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 32954 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210816/2e6843b6/image001.jpg>
More information about the WSBARP
mailing list