[WSBARP] Auditor Shame Hall of Fame

[Rob Rowley]

Spokane County’s Auditor famously recorded a mining claim on Mars.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jan/01/this-good-budnick-is-a-tough-act-to-follow/





*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
*On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:46 AM
*To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
*Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Treasurer's office needs phone numbers to record
adeed REET





On 9/21/2021 6:26 PM, Kathleen Hopkins wrote:

Wow I would like to see the legislative authority for that, given the
increased number or robocalls I have received lately!

For privacy do we need to advise clients to get burner phones?



*Kathleen J. Hopkins *



I've never had this come up post-law school, and all I remember from my
hyper-caffeinated state is Professor Fletcher saying something to the
effect that the recorder would record a [notarized?] lunch menu if you paid
the fee.  That seems consistent with both RCW 65.04.030  ("recording
officer must . . . record") and 64.04.130 ("county auditor is not bound to
record . . . until his or her fess . . . are if demanded paid. . . ..").

But then there's RCW 82.45.090 which basically says no document "may be
accepted by the county auditor for filing or recording until the tax is
paid . ..."  This is even though the tax becomes a lien on property
pursuant to RCW 82.45.070, "from the time of sale" which presumably would
put it prior to any new mortgage debt but not prior encumbrances.

I'm assuming the ability to hold up a recording of a properly formatted
deed accompanied by a facially valid REET affidavit is contained somewhere
in RCW 82.32.010, et. seq., which is applicable to recording via RCW
82.45.150.  Looking through that and related WACs is beyond the scope of my
interest at the current time.

But then there's the issue of why?  I guess with the unpaid tax lien not
being prior to existing liens the government does have a significant
interest in holding up the transaction.  Otherwise the process seems to be
mainly for the interest of the transferee and their secured lenders.  And
having a phone number would speed up resolving any issues, allowing an
earlier recording.

Seemingly though the supplying the number of an attorney should be
sufficient if indicated as such.  That would allow the issue to be
resolved, more likely faster than if they called a party to the deed.

Kary L. Krismer

206 723-2148
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20210922/1c5f4699/attachment.html>