[WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement

Wed Apr 13 20:14:18 PDT 2022

I really like Jennifer White's idea. Just make it a right to inspect that's
not waivable by PSA so it doesn't make the lack of inspection more tempting
for either party. I also like the idea of getting rid of the term "actual"
in the "actual knowledge" requirement.

*Sent with Right Inbox <https://www.rightinbox.com/?utm_source=signature>*

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:37 PM Catherine Clark <Cat at loccc.com> wrote:

> There are those who believe that waiving an inspection obviates Visser
> because one would not have notice of the defect.  There is, of course, a
> waiver argument to contend with.
>
>
>
> Catherine “Cat” Clark
> Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
>
> 110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
>
> Seattle, WA 98104
>
> Phone: (206) 838-2528
> Cell: (206) 409-8938
> Email: cat at loccc.com
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information
> transmission is confidential. 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 prohibited.  If you received this
> communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone
> at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2022 1:10 PM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement
>
>
>
> I like the concept as long as there were some penalty for the buyer
> abusing the process, perhaps similar to the statewide form's waiver of
> inspection contingency provisions.  I don't expect to see that out of the
> legislature though.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
>
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 1/13/2022 12:55 PM, Jennifer L White wrote:
>
> Why don’t they simply legislate a buyer’s right to inspect following
> execution of a PSA (pick a # of days) that cannot be waived? Some will use
> it, some will not. Every potential buyer has the opportunity to do it. It
> seems to me that would level the playing field of agents/sellers not
> accepting bids with inspection contingencies.
>
>
>
> Jennifer L. White, Esq.
>
>
>
> *jen at appletreelaw.com <jen at appletreelaw.com>*
>
> PO Box 11037
>
> Yakima, WA 98909
>
> 509.225.9813
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:16 PM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement
>
>
>
> Maybe reasonable knowledge?  Someone raised the point of not remembering
> what was in a title report they last saw 20 years ago when they bought.
> Although I'd question the need for any question that is answered on a
> preliminary commitment, like the covenants question.
>
> But again, I'm not really focusing on the liability aspects of Form 17 and
> that relationship to Alejandre v. Bull, etc, nor if I were going to change
> those line of cases would I restore negligent misrepresentation.  It would
> just be the actual fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation, and I'm not so
> sure I agree with that change because a weak claim of fraud would prevent
> summary judgment.  I don't mind putting a great deal of due diligence on
> buyers, I just wish more sellers and agents would allow that by accepting
> offers with inspection contingencies.  The combined harm of contracts
> without inspection contingencies is probably far greater than the combined
> harm from provable fraudulent activity.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
>
> John L. Scott, Inc.
>
> 206 723-2148
>
> On 1/13/2022 12:06 PM, Catherine Clark wrote:
>
> I think if we remove the term “actual” and restore negligent
> misrepresentation as a claim, that would solve the issue you raise.  Yes or
> no?
>
>
>
> Catherine “Cat” Clark
> Law Office of Catherine C. Clark PLLC
>
> 110 Prefontaine Place South, Ste. 304
>
> Seattle, WA 98104
>
> Phone: (206) 838-2528
> Cell: (206) 409-8938
> Email: cat at loccc.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic information
> transmission is confidential. 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 prohibited.  If you received this
> communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone
> at (206) 838-2528. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Kary Krismer
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 13, 2022 7:16 AM
> *To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] HR 1951--Amendment to Seller Disclosure Statement
>
>
>
> If you remove the seller knowledge requirements it would be impossible to
> answer “yes” or “no” to the following questions of the residential form.
>
>
>
> Any of the defect questions because there may be defects the seller has
> not learned of.  Actually that is almost certain, most sellers learn a lot
> when they see an inspection report on their own property.
>
>
>
> 1C—Encroachments and boundary disputes.  The seller would need to somehow
> know what their neighbors think.
>
> 1E—Easements that affect the buyer’s use (since the seller wouldn’t know
> the buyer’s use).
>
> 1G—Studies that might affect the property.  Any number of government
> agencies could have done studies on the area that might somehow affect the
> property.  Even periodic zoning processes might trigger that.
>
>
>
> 3D—Septic questions about original permitting and possibly even pumping or
> inspection if the seller didn’t do those.  Also number of bathrooms if that
> wasn’t specified back when the septic was put in.
>
> 4B—Has the basement flooded if there is no basement.
>
> 4C—Permits if the remodeling was done by a prior owner.
>
> 4G—Prior inspections since there is no date limitation and would include
> prior ownership periods.
>
> 4J—Basement insulation if there is no basement.
>
> 5C—Woodstove certifications if the seller wasn’t the purchaser.
>
> 7B—Does the property contain fill dirt.  If the seller wasn’t around when
> the property was developed there is no way of knowing that.
>
> 7E—Hazardous substances.  That would require extensive testing.
>
> 7F—Has the property been used for commercial or industrial purposes.  That
> would require knowledge back to territorial times.
>
> 7G—Soil or groundwater contamination.  That would require testing and the
> contamination could be from other properties and totally unknown.
>
> 7I—Illegal dumping.  That could require knowledge prior to the seller’s
> ownership.
>
> 7J—Drug manufacturing site.  That could require knowledge prior to the
> seller’s ownership.
>
> 9B—Did prior owners make any modifications to a Manufactured Home.  That
> would require knowledge prior to seller’s ownership.
>
> 9C—Were permits obtained for those modifications.  Same problem.
>
> Kary L. Krismer
>
> John L. Scott, Inc.
>
> 206 723-2148
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DwMDaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=kDcM-fraYQNOZ1rCslLoMSSRXJQXmQVvRJbE6ymQGho&m=sNbl8uYa9PyPwBhncHOdQj_oTsxkTXzXb2lKuIIQVfM&s=4OU_3OA3Xspux6j7qI7kuKSRC1FsHwo6TguPcY7Qkig&e=>
>
>
>
> ***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, Senior Associate Attorney

Dimension Law Group, PLLC

*Office:*  206-973-3500│*Fax:*  206-577-5090

*Email: **kaitlyn**@dimensionlaw.com <http://dimensionlaw.com/>*

*www.dimensionlaw.com <http://www.dimensionlaw.com/>*

130 Andover Park East, Suite 300, Tukwila, WA 98188

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This email (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 email is prohibited. If you have received
this email in error, please immediately notify us by email, facsimile, or
telephone; return the email to us at the email address below; and destroy
all paper and electronic copies.

*Please note that I will be going on leave starting November 15, 2021
through April 17, 2022, and will not have limited access to phone or email.
Please email Info at Dimensionlaw.com to receive assistance.*

-- 
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/20220413/ea2bd54e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 987192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220413/ea2bd54e/image001-0001.jpg>