[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 4

Fri Aug 4 15:44:52 PDT 2023

Mark,      The nature of the possession, i.e. either hostile or permissive, is determined at the time of entry and can only be changed by a distinct and positive act. So unilateral permission does not work mid-stream.      Suit has to be filed to stop the running of the ten years.      If the buyer is fine with it, you must exclude that from the effect of the warranty in the deed. Disclosure does not cure it. 
Steve
Stephen WhitehouseWhitehouse & Nichols, LLPP.O. Box 1273601 W. Railroad Ave. Shelton, Wa. 98584360-426-5885swhite8893 at aol.com

    On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:00:15 PM PDT, wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com> wrote:  

 Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
    wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
    wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim (Carmen Rowe)
  2. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 1 (Carmen Rowe)
  3. Re: Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim (Mark Anderson)
  4. Re: Prescriptive Easement Claim and Probate (Eric Nelsen)
  5. Re: WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 1 (jgrant at accima.com)
  6. Juno Auto Response. Re:  WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 1
      (laj-laws at juno.com)
  7. Homestead Property - Unrecorded Judgment
      (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)
  8. Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure - Removal of Grantor
      (Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:57:32 -0700
From: Carmen Rowe <carmen at gryphonlawgroup.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim
Message-ID:
    <CAMTVkhCmsp3rawSwChczpWynffrrWnYM8DDDtnWSWyWASwmbEQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I somewhat skimmed the digest so I may be wrong, but not sure I saw the
following points yet in response to your question.

One, there is a simple answer to whether you can unilaterally give
permission: No.

I have somewhere caselaw/analysis on that, as we had that discussion with a
party who claimed to have "permitted" my client to have his landscaping
there via letter. The caselaw is unambiguous in this answer, unilateral
permission does not stop the clock (and if anything, simply affirms the
hostile use). I don't have access just now and won't until next week, but
if you need the authority drop me a line and I can send.

The only remedy is ejectment, you have to have taken legal action to eject
the neighbor (filed suit) to stop the clock.

I think I saw in there something in the P&SA disclosing the issue/waiving
any claim, and I think that's the right approach. But given the time
already spent, if you really want to tighten it up, I'd also make sure
there is a written disclosure/waiver noting the "time is of the essence if
you are buying thinking you'll eject the neighbor yourself" element- say,
that the time period for ripening any potential claim by neighbor resulting
from the encroachment "has either already been met or will be in the near
future, such timing up to the seller to determine in accepting the
property".

Carmen Rowe

Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com

*Olympia/Lacey and primary mailing office:*
1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503

*Seattle office: We are currently moving our Seattle location - notice of
new address coming soon!*

*NOTICE REGARDING OPERATIONS AND COVID-19:* We see our community as working
together to address COVID and its impact on our lives, health, and
business. The nature of our practice lends itself well to virtual operation
and we offer a range of flexible solutions to best work with your needs and
preferences. We are here to support you.

*Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential. If you receive
this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard
any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing
this email with anyone.

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 Mark Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 1:55 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:
wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim

Dear Listmates:
Client owns real property adjacent to real property owned by "Neighbor."
Client and Neighbor do not get along.  Client reports that Neighbor has a
fence that has encroached on Client's property for 9 years.  Client would
like to avoid any future claim of adverse possession.  Client has agreed to
sell the property to a third party.  The third party is aware of the
encroachment and is willing to purchase the property subject to that
encroachment.
Will adverse possession be defeated if, at this point, Client grants
permission for Neighbor to use the property as it is currently used?  I am
contemplating either a recorded easement or a license for this purpose.
And would Neighbor have to somehow "accept" this permission?
Thanks in advance.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client
privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If
you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it
to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or
by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error,
and then delete it. 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.***
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230803/e94ba033/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:16:21 -0700
From: Carmen Rowe <carmen at gryphonlawgroup.com>
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 1
Message-ID:
    <CAMTVkhA6C_5fPh242A53F9a5EX2WZBj2-n3BY8fr636sN82x8w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I think if you look at the cases, it's still pretty clear - the question of
whether money changes hands is flat out not part of the equation. It's
whether the use is "residential" in nature. Meals and recreational
activities - if simply offering the amenities of the association - are
residential. Now, if they were operating say a tour business off the
property, that's a business. But has to be something outside how a resident
would use it. That's really the key: are the "activities" the same as
someone living there as a resident would? if so, it's "residential" for
purposes of covenants.

The really crappy thing is that it is nigh impossible for an association to
bar use of properties as short-term rentals unless the covenants already
made some reference to the time required/prohibited by leases. A look
at *Wilkenson
*alone might lead one to think that so long as the covenants discuss
"rentals" that you can amend to prohibit short-term rentals, and I've seen
attorneys advise associations as such. Unfortunately, that's fairly clearly
incorrect in my opinion. The subsequent caselaw has not panned out that
way.  Simply regulating leases does not (per cases subsequent to *Wilkenson*)
lead to allowing an association to amend to restrict shorter time-frames,
unless there is already some specific reference to time-frames in the
covenants. You very likely can't even pass regulations that substantively
impair such use.

Some dissents along the way have pointed out that this use of *Wilkenson *is
terrible, as no one could have anticipated use of residences as hotels
until the last decade or so (using the words from one such dissent), so how
could you have left the door open to regulate something you couldn't have
conceived of? you couldn't - thus tying the hands of associations under the
current criteria of the law re: amendments. There is even a majority
opinion (from the so very often literary Division III) that eloquently
bemoans the rule - but resignedly notes that the appellate courts must
adhere to the Supreme Court decisions until the law gets with modern times.

But so goes it, until someone persuades the Supreme Court that the law
needs to change in light of the modern use of such platforms.

One helpful hint is that an association can at least require that any
short-term rentals comply with the applicable WA statute (RCW 64.37) - that
at least provides some threshold requirements (insurance, etc.). Since it's
legally required by state statute, it's not a barred amendment/regulation
by the association.

The other best approach is a strict and steeply increasing fine schedule
for repeated violations of already existing covenants re: nuisance, noise,
etc. - as the problems inherent with short-term rentals almost always
involve such violations, so hit the owner's pocketbooks for whatever that
may help to deter such use, or get the owner very involved in trying to
ensure good behavior.

An interesting rabbit hole I've had a few occasions to take a deep dive
into.

Carmen Rowe

Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com

*Olympia/Lacey and primary mailing office:*
1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503

*Seattle office: We are currently moving our Seattle location - notice of
new address coming soon!*

*NOTICE REGARDING OPERATIONS AND COVID-19:* We see our community as working
together to address COVID and its impact on our lives, health, and
business. The nature of our practice lends itself well to virtual operation
and we offer a range of flexible solutions to best work with your needs and
preferences. We are here to support you.

*Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential. If you receive
this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard
any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing
this email with anyone.

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 20:11:32 +0000
>
From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Air B&Bs
Message-ID:
        <
MN0PR11MB623098E4B0341646C74FABBFC805A at MN0PR11MB6230.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Its not as clear where in addition to rental and use of property other
services are provided such as meals and recreational activities.

Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
2010 Caton Way SW Ste. 101
Olympia, WA 98502
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561

[R_Alan_Swanson-WH-200]
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that
sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**

This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and
may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s).  If this
matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.

Business Entity Creation and Management, Business, Government and Tax Law,
Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium
Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including
Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate
Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration
Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments
Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of Haylee Hurst
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:57 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Air B&Bs

Bryce, take a look at Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities Ass'n, 180 Wash. 2d
241, 327 P.3d 614 (2014).

TL:DR - Short-term rentals are a "residential" as opposed to "commercial"
use for purposes of restrictive covenants.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230803/3c086fc1/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:48:47 +0000
From: Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim
Message-ID:
    <MW2PR12MB2379CE20E0313C437368EA19C808A at MW2PR12MB2379.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks, Carmen!

Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Carmen Rowe
Sent: 08/03/2023 12:58 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim

I somewhat skimmed the digest so I may be wrong, but not sure I saw the following points yet in response to your question.

One, there is a simple answer to whether you can unilaterally give permission: No.

I have somewhere caselaw/analysis on that, as we had that discussion with a party who claimed to have "permitted" my client to have his landscaping there via letter. The caselaw is unambiguous in this answer, unilateral permission does not stop the clock (and if anything, simply affirms the hostile use). I don't have access just now and won't until next week, but if you need the authority drop me a line and I can send.

The only remedy is ejectment, you have to have taken legal action to eject the neighbor (filed suit) to stop the clock.

I think I saw in there something in the P&SA disclosing the issue/waiving any claim, and I think that's the right approach. But given the time already spent, if you really want to tighten it up, I'd also make sure there is a written disclosure/waiver noting the "time is of the essence if you are buying thinking you'll eject the neighbor yourself" element- say, that the time period for ripening any potential claim by neighbor resulting from the encroachment "has either already been met or will be in the near future, such timing up to the seller to determine in accepting the property".

Carmen Rowe

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4yaIwO8NwDh1yJGQWP1qK1vhwcBcK5yYclhzfMrEc3GuEfI5eiJ-wA30feUaQTq_2U2bQPszU4]

Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com<mailto:Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com>

Olympia/Lacey and primary mailing office:
1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503

Seattle office: We are currently moving our Seattle location - notice of new address coming soon!

NOTICE REGARDING OPERATIONS AND COVID-19: We see our community as working together to address COVID and its impact on our lives, health, and business. The nature of our practice lends itself well to virtual operation and we offer a range of flexible solutions to best work with your needs and preferences. We are here to support you.

Privileged and confidential: This message is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing this email with anyone.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto: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><mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>>> On Behalf Of Mark Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 1:55 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com><mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Defeating Prospective Adverse Possession Claim

Dear Listmates:
Client owns real property adjacent to real property owned by "Neighbor."  Client and Neighbor do not get along.  Client reports that Neighbor has a fence that has encroached on Client's property for 9 years.  Client would like to avoid any future claim of adverse possession.  Client has agreed to sell the property to a third party.  The third party is aware of the encroachment and is willing to purchase the property subject to that encroachment.
Will adverse possession be defeated if, at this point, Client grants permission for Neighbor to use the property as it is currently used?  I am contemplating either a recorded easement or a license for this purpose.  And would Neighbor have to somehow "accept" this permission?
Thanks in advance.
Mark B. Anderson
ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
Tacoma, Washington 98402
+1 253-327-1750
+1 253-327-1751 (fax)
marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com><mailto:marka at mbaesq.com<mailto:marka at mbaesq.com>>
www.mbaesq.com<http://www.mbaesq.com/><http://www.mbaesq.com/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This transmission is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750 that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. 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.***
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230803/4ea8673d/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 22:05:06 +0000
From: Eric Nelsen <eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Prescriptive Easement Claim and Probate
Message-ID:
    <SA1PR05MB7888DDEB0386589D8D7765AADD08A at SA1PR05MB7888.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I would argue no effect. The case law is clear that the claim process is for "general charges against the assets of the estate" and I don't think a possessory claim to specific real property can be construed to fit into that.

My other thought is the more general case law stating that the estate has no better title to property than the decedent had, and heirs inherit it with all encumbrances and defects, whatever they may be. Another line of reasoning that confirms that adverse possession isn't affected by the creditor nonclaim statute.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Roger Hawkes
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:13 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Prescriptive Easement Claim and Probate

Eric: in your opinion, would a creditors claim notice sent to adjoining land owners have any preclusive effect for a later asserted ap claim?

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 Eric Nelsen
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:30 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>; 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Prescriptive Easement Claim and Probate

Your instinct is correct, the creditor claim process doesn't apply to such claims. The statutory process is only for claims for money "as a general charge against the assets of the estate," meaning a mere unsecured debt owed by the decedent. A dispute over ownership of specific property that the Estate also claims is not subject to the process. These aren't exactly on point for adverse possession, but see O'Steen v. Wineberg's Estate, 30 Wn.App. 923 (1982), Compton v. Westerman, 150 Wash. 391 (1928), Gottwig v. Blaine, 59 Wn.App. 99 (1990), Baird v. Knutzen, 49 Wn.2d 308 (1956), Foley v. Smith, 14 Wn.App. 285 (1975).

For adverse possession, I think it's logical that a creditor claim does not need to be filed. The claimant has actual possession of the claimed property, and it's really the Estate who should have to file for trespass and ejectment against the claimant. If that suit by the Estate to recover the property is barred by 10-year statute of limitations, then conversely the claimant has to be entitled to quiet title in themselves.

Let's say the claimant doesn't bother to file against the Estate. The Estate will eventually deed the property either to a buyer or to heirs. At that point the claimant can sue the current holders of the property, based on adverse possession, and again the lack of a claim against the Estate can't be a problem. Otherwise, every time a property owner died, all adverse possession claims against them would be re-set to zero, contrary to the principles of tacking of adverse possession.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

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 samuel at meylerlegal.com<mailto:samuel at meylerlegal.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:49 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>; 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Prescriptive Easement Claim and Probate

Is the claimant of a prescriptive easement and/or adverse possession against a decedent's property entitled to notice to creditor and are such claims subject to claim limitation periods in probate?  In other words, is a claim for a prescriptive easement and/or adverse possession barred if the claimant fails to present the claim within the limitations period set forth in RCW 11.40 et seq.?

I am not finding any authority directly on point.  It would seem strange that claims that are considered perfected after the required period would be barred and I would not call a claimant in this scenario a "creditor," but these surely are "claims."

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<mailto: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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230803/312ba4d1/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 09:18:51 -0700
From: <jgrant at accima.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 1
Message-ID: <035d01d9c6ef$5c3cc470$14b64d50$@accima.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I live in a HOA; the covenants were changed not allowing short term rentals.  It was approved by the % needed under the CC&R?s to amend.  I thought that once approved that would be binding on all members of the HOA, as well as grantees in the future of those members.  Yes?

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Carmen Rowe
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 1:16 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 1

I think if you look at the cases, it's still pretty clear - the question of whether money changes hands is flat out not part of the equation. It's whether the use is "residential" in nature. Meals and recreational activities - if simply offering the amenities of the association - are residential. Now, if they were operating say a tour business off the property, that's a business. But has to be something outside how a resident would use it. That's really the key: are the "activities" the same as someone living there as a resident would? if so, it's "residential" for purposes of covenants. 

The really crappy thing is that it is nigh impossible for an association to bar use of properties as short-term rentals unless the covenants already made some reference to the time required/prohibited by leases. A look at Wilkenson alone might lead one to think that so long as the covenants discuss "rentals" that you can amend to prohibit short-term rentals, and I've seen attorneys advise associations as such. Unfortunately, that's fairly clearly incorrect in my opinion. The subsequent caselaw has not panned out that way.  Simply regulating leases does not (per cases subsequent to Wilkenson) lead to allowing an association to amend to restrict shorter time-frames, unless there is already some specific reference to time-frames in the covenants. You very likely can't even pass regulations that substantively impair such use. 

Some dissents along the way have pointed out that this use of Wilkenson is terrible, as no one could have anticipated use of residences as hotels until the last decade or so (using the words from one such dissent), so how could you have left the door open to regulate something you couldn't have conceived of? you couldn't - thus tying the hands of associations under the current criteria of the law re: amendments. There is even a majority opinion (from the so very often literary Division III) that eloquently bemoans the rule - but resignedly notes that the appellate courts must adhere to the Supreme Court decisions until the law gets with modern times.

But so goes it, until someone persuades the Supreme Court that the law needs to change in light of the modern use of such platforms. 

One helpful hint is that an association can at least require that any short-term rentals comply with the applicable WA statute (RCW 64.37) - that at least provides some threshold requirements (insurance, etc.). Since it's legally required by state statute, it's not a barred amendment/regulation by the association. 

The other best approach is a strict and steeply increasing fine schedule for repeated violations of already existing covenants re: nuisance, noise, etc. - as the problems inherent with short-term rentals almost always involve such violations, so hit the owner's pocketbooks for whatever that may help to deter such use, or get the owner very involved in trying to ensure good behavior.

An interesting rabbit hole I've had a few occasions to take a deep dive into.

Carmen Rowe

  <https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4yaIwO8NwDh1yJGQWP1qK1vhwcBcK5yYclhzfMrEc3GuEfI5eiJ-wA30feUaQTq_2U2bQPszU4> 

Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)

Email:  <mailto:Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com> Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com

Olympia/Lacey and primary mailing office:

1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503

Seattle office: We are currently moving our Seattle location - notice of new address coming soon!

NOTICE REGARDING OPERATIONS AND COVID-19: We see our community as working together to address COVID and its impact on our lives, health, and business. The nature of our practice lends itself well to virtual operation and we offer a range of flexible solutions to best work with your needs and preferences. We are here to support you. 

Privileged and confidential: This message is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing this email with anyone. 

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 20:11:32 +0000

From: Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com <mailto:Bryce at dillelaw.com> >
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> >
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Air B&Bs
Message-ID:
        <MN0PR11MB623098E4B0341646C74FABBFC805A at MN0PR11MB6230.namprd11.prod.outlook.com <mailto:MN0PR11MB623098E4B0341646C74FABBFC805A at MN0PR11MB6230.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Its not as clear where in addition to rental and use of property other services are provided such as meals and recreational activities.

Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
2010 Caton Way SW Ste. 101
Olympia, WA 98502
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561

[R_Alan_Swanson-WH-200]
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**

This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s).  If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.

Business Entity Creation and Management, Business, Government and Tax Law, Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures.

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 Haylee Hurst
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:57 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> 
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Air B&Bs

Bryce, take a look at Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities Ass'n, 180 Wash. 2d 241, 327 P.3d 614 (2014).

TL:DR - Short-term rentals are a "residential" as opposed to "commercial" use for purposes of restrictive covenants.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230804/8e53d536/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri,  4 Aug 2023 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: laj-laws at juno.com
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Juno Auto Response. Re:  WSBARP Digest, Vol 107,
    Issue 1
Message-ID: <AABUN4KTWAAJWH5A at maildeliver01.dca.untd.com>

Mr. Johnstone is currently out of the office, but will be back in Monday
afternoon, August 7th. Feel free to leave him a message here or on his 
toll free 888.298.1647 number.
He will get back to you once he returns to the office.

The Law Offices of Larry A. Johnstone, Attorney at Law, PLLC

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 09:58:16 -0700
From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Homestead Property - Unrecorded Judgment
Message-ID: <00b401d9c6f4$ddbc10f0$993432d0$@bellanddavispllc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Listmates:

I am interested in understanding how RCW 6.13.090 works.  Homeowner files
chapter 7 and discharges  a debt from a default judgment that was never
recorded.  Debtor had a home with equity of just over the homestead amount,
but when considering cost of sale, no action by bk trustee against the home,
and the discharge entered and case closed.  Judgment  is still listed on a
pre-sale report.  RCW states in part, a judgment "shall become a lien on the
value of the homestead property in excess of the homestead exemption from
the time the judgment creditor records the judgment with the recording
officer of the county where the property is located."  Does the judgment
creditor have any "lien" against the property post-bankruptcy?

Jeff 

W. Jeff Davis

BELL & DAVIS PLLC

Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 510

720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105
Sequim WA 98382
Phone: (360) 683.1129 
Fax: (360) 683.1258 
email:  <mailto:jeff at bellanddavispllc.com> jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
 <http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/> www.bellanddavispllc.com

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged,
confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in
error, please e-mail the sender at  <mailto:info at bellanddavispllc.com>
info at bellanddavispllc.com  or call 360.683.1129.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230804/6e8e5271/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:50:28 -0700
From: <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure - Removal of Grantor
Message-ID: <00db01d9c704$8a4a9300$9edfb900$@bellanddavispllc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Listmates:

I have done Deed in Lieu of Foreclosures for years.  I have no clue where
those are authorized.  Also, what if the Grantor, of such deed, fails to get
out.  Does the Grantee have the same rights as the purchaser at a deed of
trust foreclosure sale?  Can you agree as part of the Deed in lieu, that if
the Grantor does not vacate by a date certain, that the Grantee can treat
the Grantor as a squatter, or trespasser and use a  three day notice to
vacate under 59.12?

Jeff 

W. Jeff Davis

BELL & DAVIS PLLC

Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 510

720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105
Sequim WA 98382
Phone: (360) 683.1129 
Fax: (360) 683.1258 
email:  <mailto:jeff at bellanddavispllc.com> jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
 <http://www.bellanddavispllc.com/> www.bellanddavispllc.com

The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged,
confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in
error, please e-mail the sender at  <mailto:info at bellanddavispllc.com>
info at bellanddavispllc.com  or call 360.683.1129.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230804/639b990d/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

***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

End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 107, Issue 4
**************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20230804/a6848a60/attachment.html>