[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 82, Issue 27

Fri Jul 30 15:06:59 PDT 2021

Doug,     We do these all the time here. There are two possible interpretations of the statute. Mason County used to take a very strict view. Now, just the opposite.      What you have to be careful of is, you either have to have a legit boundary issue, or you are not making a legal nonconforming lot more nonconforming. If you are waterfront property in Mason County, the odds are 98% you are legal nonconforming and you are likely making one lot more nonconforming.      When I do these, I always work through Michael MacSems at Mason County Planning, 360-427-9670, ext. 571. I have built up a trust relationship with him over the years so he knows I am not trying to do something I should not, so it makes it much easier to work with him. Life in a small town. I often call him up to let him know what I am doing.     The Mason County Treasurer is very strict on requiring taxes on both parcels being current through the end of the year before they will allow it. Some counties, I have found, don't seem to care.     If you get in touch with us, we have a form we use that also has conveyance language in it.
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, Jul 30, 2021 12:00 pm
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 82, Issue 27

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. Referral to Counsel in Mexico (Samuel M. Meyler)
  2. Re: Referral to Counsel in Mexico (Jim Doran)
  3. boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007 (Douglas Owens)
  4. landlords lien and other UCC considerations (Athena Dickerson)
  5. Re: boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007 (Joshua McKarcher)
  6. Re: landlords lien and other UCC considerations (Andrew Hay)
  7. Form 17 to tenants (Craig Blackmon)
  8. Re: Form 17 to tenants (Kary Krismer)
  9. Re: Form 17 to tenants (Andrew Hay)
  10. Re: boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007 (Bryce Dille)
  11. Post-Divorce QCD Catch 22 (Ryan P. Coon)

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

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:27:08 -0700
From: "Samuel M. Meyler" <samuel at meylerlegal.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Referral to Counsel in Mexico
Message-ID:
    <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAACbHoCsc1ItKmJ4fEYgZbykBAMO2jhD3dRHOtM0AqgC7tuYAAAAAAA4AABAAAACA0GmKuZcFSp6+qCDRHBzfAQAAAAA=@meylerlegal.com>

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

Looking for a referral to counsel in Mexico to assist with a perfecting
security interests in cellular towers throughout Mexico.  Thanks.

Sam

Samuel M. Meyler

Meyler Legal, PLLC 

1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200

Seattle, Washington 98109

Tel:  206.876.7770

Fax:  206.876.7771

Email:  <mailto:samuel at meylerlegal.com> samuel at meylerlegal.com

NOTICE:

This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or
Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information is
intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you
are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210729/505564e9/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:49:34 -0700
From: Jim Doran <jim at doranlegal.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Referral to Counsel in Mexico
Message-ID:
    <CANk51bDOqzbSYOVxZhxq+xHMYP77zwNiYZK_sJ_uKH7d9hZphg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

In many instances the ?Notario Publico? performs tasks we would except an
attorney to do.  With that in mind, I have a three year relationship with a
good firm (Notarios) in the centrally located city of Guanajuato.

I can connect you to them.  Some of the staff are fluent in English.

James

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:29 PM Samuel M. Meyler <samuel at meylerlegal.com>
wrote:

> Looking for a referral to counsel in Mexico to assist with a perfecting
> security interests in cellular towers throughout Mexico.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
> *Samuel M. Meyler*
>
> *Meyler Legal, PLLC *
>
> 1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1700+Westlake+Ave.+N.,+Ste.+200+Seattle,+Washington+98109?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Seattle, Washington 98109
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1700+Westlake+Ave.+N.,+Ste.+200+Seattle,+Washington+98109?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> *Tel:*  206.876.7770
>
> *Fax:*  206.876.7771
>
> *Email:*  samuel at meylerlegal.com
>
>
>
> *NOTICE:*
>
>
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or
> Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning
> of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information
> is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If
> you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
> sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments.
> 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

-- 
James R. Doran
Attorney at Law
100 E. Pine Street -  Suite 205
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360)393-9506
jim at doranlegal.com
www.doranlegal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210729/785670c2/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:51:30 +0000
From: Douglas Owens <dougowens at seattlerelawyer.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007
Message-ID: <1BFABECC-BA76-4410-BA9C-CB557FD605BA at seattlerelawyer.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear list mates, I am hoping for some wise counsel on a question involving a boundary line agreement under the above statute.  My client owns a waterfront parcel in Mason County and the common boundary with his neighbor to the south is in some mild dispute.  The neighbor wants to relocate the line about fifteen feet into my client?s parcel and my client does not object or want payment.  The statute seems to say that the matter can be resolved by a simple agreement between the owners, acknowledged as for a deed, and accompanied by the legal descriptions of the parcels, the legal description of the new line and a survey map filed according to the statute.  We have all that, but the issues seem to be first whether in addition reciprocal quitclaims of interests on the other sides of the new line are needed, and second whether any government approval is required.  I do not see either of these as requirements in the statute but the surveyor who did the new survey with the boundary!
  line included the quitclaim language in the survey and suggested that the county would have to be consulted and approve.  Does anyone have experience especially in Mason County with this type of situation?  Thank you.  Yours truly, Doug Owens

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

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:52:54 +0000
From: Athena Dickerson <athena at detsparlaw.com>
To: "wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] landlords lien and other UCC considerations
Message-ID:
    <BY3PR13MB48037F40CB8C20958BF42AE1BDEC9 at BY3PR13MB4803.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

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

Hi Listmates,

Anyone dealt with executing on a landlord's lien and/or had to deal with a commercial tenant's personal property left behind after eviction.  Usually in the past I have had the opposite problem where tenants take everything, including things that are not theirs to take (fixtures, etc).  I know RCW 60.72 covers landlords lien but looking for some practical advice, especially since the value of the personal property will no doubt exceed any landlord lien recovery.    Or maybe a referral to someone my client can consult with on this?

Thanks!

Athena Makratzakis Dickerson
DETHLEFS SPARWASSER<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdetsparlaw.com&c=E,1,3MignbV7JN3fDW35Ex6-X8EUG7nEGjNuKTlfq-Aje1rdb6fDs8Yt68iJDkX__xogulPxvRxqczE1jab42wQRIayCHjlfyP0fLjpZdlZRIPinoeG9OpKmAQ,,&typo=1>
REICH DICKERSON PLLC<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdetsparlaw.com&c=E,1,bLSaO3IzGA_4xpDLui54w20Gh4qqnIdqihOO9lsFaFpEr3IyQlnxxNFTiURyp45gMfqeZoZNVArN8uCnWCEWoTGD7jQGcUGBlkqV6h6b1rlgrg,,&typo=1>
100 Second Avenue South, Suite 190  I  Edmonds, WA 98020
P  425.776.1352  I  F 425.776.2467
athena at detsparlaw.com<mailto:athena at detsparlaw.com>

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, contains confidential information from DETHLEFS SPARWASSER REICH DICKERSON PLLC, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under applicable law, and/or may contain attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify our office immediately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210730/e535a786/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:08:00 +0000
From: Joshua McKarcher <josh at mckarcherlaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007
Message-ID:
    <MW3PR11MB4652CE0C83E191B4260F15F1BBEC9 at MW3PR11MB4652.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

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

Not in Mason County, but here I would work with the assessor?s office and specifically the person responsible for the GPS mapping system that ? if I?m correct ? the entire state is using now (but don?t quote me in that).

Here, ?Gail? is my best friend in the world, because no legal description gets approval without her say so. (To the degree that when she once was on vacation and the local title company recorded and insured a deed in a normal sale of land, Gail simply and firmly rejected it later on ? and the title company was very grateful the grantor was still alive and well and cooperative to sign a corrective deed for my client the grantee.)

Go find your Gail, fearless boundary adjuster! ;)

Best, Josh

Joshua D. McKarcher
McKarcher Law PLLC
537 6th Street
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-3345
(509) 758-3314 (fax)
josh at mckarcherlaw.com
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com>
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Douglas Owens <dougowens at seattlerelawyer.com>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 9:51:30 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007

Dear list mates, I am hoping for some wise counsel on a question involving a boundary line agreement under the above statute.  My client owns a waterfront parcel in Mason County and the common boundary with his neighbor to the south is in some mild dispute.  The neighbor wants to relocate the line about fifteen feet into my client?s parcel and my client does not object or want payment.  The statute seems to say that the matter can be resolved by a simple agreement between the owners, acknowledged as for a deed, and accompanied by the legal descriptions of the parcels, the legal description of the new line and a survey map filed according to the statute.  We have all that, but the issues seem to be first whether in addition reciprocal quitclaims of interests on the other sides of the new line are needed, and second whether any government approval is required.  I do not see either of these as requirements in the statute but the surveyor who did the new survey with the boundary!
  line included the quitclaim language in the survey and suggested that the county would have to be consulted and approve.  Does anyone have experience especially in Mason County with this type of situation?  Thank you.  Yours truly, Doug Owens

***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/20210730/f7c4d452/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:18:30 +0000
From: Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] landlords lien and other UCC considerations
Message-ID:
    <MN2PR13MB3992E9F73D93F2D3F2EEEB12B2EC9 at MN2PR13MB3992.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

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

Contract language varies.  Sometimes a clause like this (from CBA Lease)

c.      Failure to Remove Property. If Tenant fails to remove any of its property from the Premises at Landlord's request following an uncured Event of Default, Landlord may, at its option, remove and store the property at Tenant's expense and risk. If Tenant does not pay the storage cost within five (5) days of Landlord's request, Landlord may, at its option, have any or all of such property sold at public or private sale (and Landlord may become a purchaser at such sale), in such manner as Landlord deems proper, without notice to Tenant. Landlord shall apply the proceeds of such sale: (i) to the expense of such sale, including reasonable attorneys' fees actually incurred; (ii) to the payment of the costs or charges for storing such property; (iii) to the payment of any other sums of money which may then be or thereafter become due Landlord from Tenant under any of the terms hereof; and (iv) the balance, if any, to Tenant. Nothing in this Section shall limit Landlord's righ!
 t to sell Tenant's personal property as permitted by law or to foreclose Landlord's lien for unpaid rent.

You may also have written lien rights.

7.      LESSOR'S LIEN: As additional security, LESSEE acknowledges, to the extent allowed by applicable law, the LESSOR'S right to hold and sell with due legal notice all property on or to be brought on the Premises in order to satisfy unpaid Rent, expenses, and utilities.  No property of LESSEE brought onto the Leased Premises shall be removed by LESSEE other than in the ordinary course of business as long as LESSEE is in default in the terms of this lease.

RCW 60.72.010 comes into play as well and there may be other people
with prior secured interests.

Andrew Hay
Hay & Swann PLLC
201 S. 34th St.
Tacoma, WA 98418
www.washingtonlaw.net<http://www.washingtonlaw.net/>
andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net<mailto:andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
He/him/his
253.272.2400 (w)
253.377.3085 (c)
THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION AND IS INTENDED FOR THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ONLY.  IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Athena Dickerson
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 9:53 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] landlords lien and other UCC considerations

Hi Listmates,

Anyone dealt with executing on a landlord's lien and/or had to deal with a commercial tenant's personal property left behind after eviction.  Usually in the past I have had the opposite problem where tenants take everything, including things that are not theirs to take (fixtures, etc).  I know RCW 60.72 covers landlords lien but looking for some practical advice, especially since the value of the personal property will no doubt exceed any landlord lien recovery.    Or maybe a referral to someone my client can consult with on this?

Thanks!

Athena Makratzakis Dickerson
DETHLEFS SPARWASSER<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdetsparlaw.com&c=E,1,3MignbV7JN3fDW35Ex6-X8EUG7nEGjNuKTlfq-Aje1rdb6fDs8Yt68iJDkX__xogulPxvRxqczE1jab42wQRIayCHjlfyP0fLjpZdlZRIPinoeG9OpKmAQ,,&typo=1>
REICH DICKERSON PLLC<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdetsparlaw.com&c=E,1,bLSaO3IzGA_4xpDLui54w20Gh4qqnIdqihOO9lsFaFpEr3IyQlnxxNFTiURyp45gMfqeZoZNVArN8uCnWCEWoTGD7jQGcUGBlkqV6h6b1rlgrg,,&typo=1>
100 Second Avenue South, Suite 190  I  Edmonds, WA 98020
P  425.776.1352  I  F 425.776.2467
athena at detsparlaw.com<mailto:athena at detsparlaw.com>

This message and the documents attached to it, if any, contains confidential information from DETHLEFS SPARWASSER REICH DICKERSON PLLC, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under applicable law, and/or may contain attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify our office immediately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210730/a746a820/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:06:55 -0700
From: Craig Blackmon <craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com>
To: WSBA Real Property List Serve <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Form 17 to tenants
Message-ID:
    <CAG1D8uYh8SbUFkgTWmQK0p5fvBrNGW8yojC+3r3_Qe7_YG1YWQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Group Mind, I would love your input.

Per RCW 64.06.010(4)
<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.06.010>: A seller need not
provide a Seller Disclosure Statement "where a buyer had an *ownership
interest* in the property within two years of the date of the transfer
including, but not limited to, an ownership interest as a partner in a
partnership, a limited partner in a limited partnership, a shareholder in a
corporation, *a leasehold interest,* or transfers to and from a facilitator
pursuant to a tax deferred exchange.

So, does this mean a seller/landlord does not need to provide a Form 17 to
a buyer/tenant?

If so, can we all agree that this is poorly drafted? A "leasehold interest"
simply is not an "ownership interest" -- right???

Thank you!

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
<https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000029240>
92 Lenora St. #8, Seattle WA  98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949
On the blog: How to Read (and Understand) a Title Report
<http://seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog/how-to-read-and-understand-a-title-report>
<https://seattlepropertylawyer.com/>    <https://www.fsbolawyers.org/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210730/2b70c9a6/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:25:44 -0700
From: Kary Krismer <Krismer at comcast.net>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 to tenants
Message-ID: <e430614c-cc40-3458-504a-8ed114fedb85 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

I think a leasehold is a limited ownership interest, but that's just my 
recollection from law school.

Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148

On 7/30/2021 11:06 AM, Craig Blackmon wrote:
> Group Mind, I would love your input.
>
> Per RCW 64.06.010(4) 
> <https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.06.010>: A seller 
> need not provide a Seller Disclosure Statement "where a buyer had an 
> /ownership interest/ in the property within two years of the date of 
> the transfer including, but not limited to, an ownership interest as a 
> partner in a partnership, a limited partner in a limited partnership, 
> a shareholder in a corporation, /a leasehold interest,/ or transfers 
> to and from a facilitator pursuant to a tax deferred exchange.
>
> So, does this mean a seller/landlord does not need to provide a Form 
> 17 to a buyer/tenant?
>
> If so, can we all agree that this is poorly drafted? A "leasehold 
> interest" simply is not an "ownership interest" -- right???
>
> Thank you!
>
> Craig
> Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law 
> <https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000029240>
> 92 Lenora St. #8, Seattle WA? 98121
> Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949
> On the blog: How to Read (and Understand) a Title Report 
> <http://seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog/how-to-read-and-understand-a-title-report>
> <https://seattlepropertylawyer.com/> <https://www.fsbolawyers.org/>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential 
> electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the 
> sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than 
> the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential 
> or privileged nature.? Any review or distribution by others is 
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please 
> inform the sender and destroy all copies.
>
> ***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/20210730/e759c345/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:30:15 +0000
From: Andrew Hay <andrewhay at washingtonlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 to tenants
Message-ID:
    <MN2PR13MB399206E82E41B0489B02906FB2EC9 at MN2PR13MB3992.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Looks like a lessee would qualify under that.  It is a leasehold estate that he owns.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 11:26 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Form 17 to tenants

I think a leasehold is a limited ownership interest, but that's just my recollection from law school.

Kary L. Krismer

206 723-2148
On 7/30/2021 11:06 AM, Craig Blackmon wrote:
Group Mind, I would love your input.

Per RCW 64.06.010(4)<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.06.010>: A seller need not provide a Seller Disclosure Statement "where a buyer had an ownership interest in the property within two years of the date of the transfer including, but not limited to, an ownership interest as a partner in a partnership, a limited partner in a limited partnership, a shareholder in a corporation, a leasehold interest, or transfers to and from a facilitator pursuant to a tax deferred exchange.
So, does this mean a seller/landlord does not need to provide a Form 17 to a buyer/tenant?

If so, can we all agree that this is poorly drafted? A "leasehold interest" simply is not an "ownership interest" -- right???

Thank you!

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law<https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000029240>
92 Lenora St. #8, Seattle WA  98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949
On the blog: How to Read (and Understand) a Title Report<http://seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog/how-to-read-and-understand-a-title-report>
[https://drive.google.com/a/lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com/uc?id=1hQRIEe9StVVNNSx58ImicjsXMNCAUmxM&export=download]<https://seattlepropertylawyer.com/>  [https://drive.google.com/a/lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com/uc?id=1uOJNigm0yzzeN5xhdzTXoGcHNRdd1U6q&export=download] <https://www.fsbolawyers.org/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all copies.

***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/20210730/99dbf18b/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:42:10 +0000
From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007
Message-ID: <FDBA6471-3E7C-4316-86A7-C8C16319918B at dillelaw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

No governmental approval required just need recorded survey boundary line agreement and quit claim deed in accordance with the agreement. Make sure that if there are underlying Deeds of trust or mortgages that you get releases so that clear title can be conveyed.When deed is recorded note that it is pursuant to a boundary line agreement and I always attach a copy of the recorded survey and boundary line agreement to the excise tax affidavit

Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561

** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**

On Jul 30, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Joshua McKarcher <josh at mckarcherlaw.com> wrote:

?
Not in Mason County, but here I would work with the assessor?s office and specifically the person responsible for the GPS mapping system that ? if I?m correct ? the entire state is using now (but don?t quote me in that).

Here, ?Gail? is my best friend in the world, because no legal description gets approval without her say so. (To the degree that when she once was on vacation and the local title company recorded and insured a deed in a normal sale of land, Gail simply and firmly rejected it later on ? and the title company was very grateful the grantor was still alive and well and cooperative to sign a corrective deed for my client the grantee.)

Go find your Gail, fearless boundary adjuster! ;)

Best, Josh

Joshua D. McKarcher
McKarcher Law PLLC
537 6th Street
Clarkston, WA 99403
(509) 758-3345
(509) 758-3314 (fax)
josh at mckarcherlaw.com
www.mckarcherlaw.com<http://www.mckarcherlaw.com>
________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Douglas Owens <dougowens at seattlerelawyer.com>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 9:51:30 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] boundary line agreement under RCW 58.04.007

Dear list mates, I am hoping for some wise counsel on a question involving a boundary line agreement under the above statute.  My client owns a waterfront parcel in Mason County and the common boundary with his neighbor to the south is in some mild dispute.  The neighbor wants to relocate the line about fifteen feet into my client?s parcel and my client does not object or want payment.  The statute seems to say that the matter can be resolved by a simple agreement between the owners, acknowledged as for a deed, and accompanied by the legal descriptions of the parcels, the legal description of the new line and a survey map filed according to the statute.  We have all that, but the issues seem to be first whether in addition reciprocal quitclaims of interests on the other sides of the new line are needed, and second whether any government approval is required.  I do not see either of these as requirements in the statute but the surveyor who did the new survey with the boundary!
  line included the quitclaim language in the survey and suggested that the county would have to be consulted and approve.  Does anyone have experience especially in Mason County with this type of situation?  Thank you.  Yours truly, Doug Owens

***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/20210730/f20feb76/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:56:13 -0700
From: "Ryan P. Coon" <cole-gilday at stanwoodlaw.net>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Post-Divorce QCD Catch 22
Message-ID: <5913abb8-b341-7814-445d-e6a2efc03b37 at stanwoodlaw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Listmates,

I've got a client needing to record a QCD to separate property 
post-divorce but is running into what seems to be a "catch 22" problem 
so I'm looking for some creative solutions.

Client by divorce decree is awarded the family home and thus needs to 
record a QCD from ex-spouse to separate the property. However, there is 
a large amount of outstanding property taxes due (several years worth) 
and the county (Island) is refusing to record the deed without the taxes 
being made current. Client doesn't have the funds to bring taxes current 
so is seeking a loan to pay the taxes. However, client is having trouble 
procuring a loan because the bank is requiring signature of ex-spouse 
since ex-spouse's name is on the property but ex-spouse will not sign 
off on the loan.

Thus, client can't record a QCD because they don't have the money to pay 
the taxes but their having trouble getting the money to pay the taxes 
without first recording the QCD.

Any thoughts or creative work-arounds for this would be much 
appreciated, thank you.

-- 

Very Truly Yours,

Ryan P. Coon

Law Office of Cole & Gilday, P.C.

//

10101 - 270th St. NW

Stanwood, WA 98292

(360) 629-2900 (Telephone)

(360) 629-0220 (Fax)

This message contains confidential and privileged information that is 
intended only for the named recipient(s).Unless you are the named 
recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are prohibited from reading, 
copying, distributing or otherwise disseminating such information.If you 
receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210730/c79a543a/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 82, Issue 27
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210730/5ee8c976/attachment.html>