[WSBARP] Urgent question for u/d hearing

Wed Jul 20 10:14:10 PDT 2022

"That said, if the other tenants appeared through counsel with this answer, you could argue that the violation was de minimis as they have not been prejudiced and starting over again would be too much of a sanction for a 90-day notice."

Playing devil's advocate, I can just hear the justice project attorney arguing that UD is a statutory remedy and the notice provisions must be strictly followed.  Just saying.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D89C21.3FBC2BA0]

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.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Maxwell Glasson
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:54 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Urgent question for u/d hearing

Hi Gwendolyn,

If I were on the Tenant's side, I would argue that RCW 59.12.040 does require mailing for all the other copies for the additional tenants.

That said, if the other tenants appeared through counsel with this answer, you could argue that the violation was de minimis as they have not been prejudiced and starting over again would be too much of a sanction for a 90-day notice.

Let us know how it goes!

Maxwell B. Glasson
Glasson Legal, PLLC
8 Boston Street, Suite 2
Seattle, Washington, 98109
(206) 627-0528
max at glassonlegal.com<mailto:max at glassonlegal.com>
www.glassonlegal.com<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glassonlegal.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C39e3bf223a8849d6789708da6a711046%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637939331097857073%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CxanXrjgC2cI54DZvshqdubSDvZAGlCOnK8SUzJxlJ4%3D&reserved=0>
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<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Gwendolyn Cornwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 9:27 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Urgent question for u/d hearing

Thank you for responding.  My question is if it wasn't just served on a person of suitable age and discretion, but copies for all tenants were personally served to one tenant is mailing still required?  The person who was personally served was also a tenant.  Does this make a difference?

Thank you,

Gwendolyn Cornwell
Attorney
GOURLEY LAW GROUP
THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION
SNOHOMISH ESCROW
P.O. Box 1091
Snohomish, WA 98291
PH:  (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401
Fax: (360) 568-8092

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Kelby Derenick
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 8:31 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Urgent question for u/d hearing

Gwendolyn,

I am assuming the 90 day notice issued under RCW 59.18.650(2).  If so, at the end of that statute, under section 6(a), it states that all notices must be served as provided in RCW 59.12.040.  Under that statute, in section (2), it states that if the person to be served is absent from the premises, then serve on a person of suitable age and discretion AND mail the notice addressed directly to the tenant to be served.

I could be going down the wrong path if it was a notice served not pursuant to RCW 59.18.650.  I hope this helps.

Kelby J. Derenick
Attorney

10018 Greenwood Ave. N
Seattle, WA 98133
Ph. (206) 659-5061

14 E. Main Street, Suite 207
Walla Walla, WA 99362
Ph: (509) 676-9805

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This electronic mail message contains information that (a) is or may be legally privileged, confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, using, copying, or distributing any part of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact me immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system.  Thank you.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:28 PM Gwendolyn Cornwell <Gwendolyn at glgmail.com<mailto:Gwendolyn at glgmail.com>> wrote:
All,

I have a u/d hearing on Thursday.  This afternoon the tenant's attorney served and filed the answer, which throws everything at us.
One of the defenses is that our 90-day notice, which included several named tenants and "All other occupants" was personally served on one of the unnamed tenants and therefore required mailing.
I had the idea that mailing is only required if the notice is served on "a suitable person" who is not a tenant as well.  My question is, when serving multiple tenants, is it sufficient to serve one tenant with all copies, or does that require mailing as well?
Is there anything to cite to on this?

Thank you!

Gwendolyn Cornwell
Attorney
Gourley Law Group
360-568-5065
***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<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=05%7C01%7C%7C39e3bf223a8849d6789708da6a711046%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637939331097857073%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BxXRhNDX%2BDRGDsrM%2B%2FTuwaO4Xy6UliBRzeOU8OohY08%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220720/bf268d04/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220720/bf268d04/image001.jpg>