[WSBARP] King County Just Cause UD Gurus

[Maxwell Glasson]

Paul,

Regarding 1236, despite the "at a minimum" language, failing to list the property within 30 days "with a realty agency or ... on the real estate multiple listing service" only creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner "did not intend to sell the unit".  My gut says that producing a Purchase and Sale Agreement or evidence of escrow being opened would be enough to rebut this presumption.

Regards,

Maxwell B. Glasson
Glasson Legal, PLLC
2212 Queen Anne Ave. N, #659
Seattle, Washington, 98109
206-627-0528
max at glassonlegal.com<mailto:max at glassonlegal.com>
www.glassonlegal.com<http://www.glassonlegal.com/>
WA# 51948  NV# 13339  CA# 292356
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM OR THE ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 3:20 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] King County Just Cause UD Gurus


SB 1236 extends "just cause" termination under Chapter 59.18 to my neck of the woods.  I have a client who wants to sell his single family residence and he knows he has to give a 90 notice.  But the new section reads that "at a minimum" he has to list the property and keep it listed for at least 90 days (yeah, I know, a simplification) and HE HAS A BUYER LINED UP ALREADY.  Have the King County courts recognized that it is ridiculous to require a LL to list property for sale when a buyer is waiting in the wings?  Or, do your LLs proceed under subsection 2(m) for "other good cause."  Does having a buyer ready, willing, and able fulfill the requirement that the sale to the buyer is "a legitimate economic or business reason."  It feels to me as though this section relies too much on what the judge had for breakfast the morning of the hearing.  Thanks for your input and expertise to us country cousins who haven't had to deal with "good cause."




IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.

E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210625/74e1f924/attachment.html>