[WSBARP] Seller's Failure to Comply with King County Health Code Re: On-Site Sewage

[Craig Blackmon]

How about a claim against the escrow agent?

CB
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: Co-Ownership of Real Property by Single People
<https://www.fsbolawyers.org/blog/tenants-in-common-agreement>
<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.


On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:44 PM <samuel at meylerlegal.com> wrote:

> Listmates,
>
>
>
> Section 13.60.030 of the King County Board of Health Code requires a
> seller of any single family or multi-family residential property that is
> served by an on-site sewage system satisfy certain requirements prior to
> the transfer of title.  Section 13.60.030 provides:
>
>
>
>
>
> Assume that there are no maintenance records available so Subsection A.4.
> is inapplicable.  For those of you who are familiar, NWMLS 22S-King is the
> form that a real estate broker would typically include in a transaction on
> such a property, which makes the requirements of Section 13.60.030
>  contractual as between the seller and the buyer.  Without NWMLS 22S-King,
> it seems that seller’s failure to satisfy the requirements is nothing more
> than a violation of the Health Code, subject to enforcement by the Dept. of
> Public Health.
>
>
>
> In a situation where the buyer and seller did not include NWMLS 22S-King,
> and the seller fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 13.60.030, does
> the buyer have a private right of action against the seller for damages?
> Alternatively, does the buyer have a basis to terminate or rescind the
> transaction as a result of seller’s failure to meet the requirements of
> Section 13.60.030?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on this.
>
>
>
> 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:*  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220629/fdd87be6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 119935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220629/fdd87be6/image001.png>