[WSBARP] Federally backed mortgages and evictions

[Kaitlyn Jackson]

I sold my single family rental home earlier this year for all these reasons. 

Most of my clients of single family rental homes have already sold or are preparing to sell. It’s too expensive, time consuming, and risky of a business. 

I have a relatively small practice, but we have probably served hundreds of “notices of intent to sell” for single family rental homes in the last 2-3 years.

But the huge companies are staying the course because they can ride it out and ultimately enjoy more market share.  

What seems to be forgotten in the legislatures push for “more robust tenant rights” is that when there are problem tenants that are very difficult to remove because of the process, they aren’t usually affecting the landlord on a day to day basis, but they are making the lives of other tenants absolutely brutal. It’s those tenants who are forgotten. I watched a show cause hearing the other day where the tenant was smoking in the apartment building and the smoke was making a 7 year old girl with asthma very ill. Of course the court continued the case out many weeks for tenant’s counsel as a “matter of policy” over the objections of the landlord’s attorney. Of course I know it probably took 3-4 weeks just to get the 1st hearing on the court’s calendar. And of course the Sherwood Auburn vs Pinzon case will be a point of argument that the 10 day notice to comply or vacate or 3 day notice to quit should now be 30 days, etc etc. All in, I doubt that little girl will see relief for many months (if at all because those cases seem to generally result in the victim relocating because that’s easier, faster, and cheaper). But it’s those tenants’ rights that are forgotten in the social justice push for “more robust tenant rights.”

Kaitlyn 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 19, 2023, at 7:06 AM, Mark McClure <mark at mcclurelawgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> I have two rental homes and a third we are getting ready.  I don't want to
> sell into this market, but when it recovers I am out.  We are charging
> clients an arm and a leg to rid of difficult tenants because of the extra
> time, effort, and liabilities involved with evictions.  The amended UD laws
> are a huge magnifying glass of liability for the homeowner/landlord and the
> legal fees and repair costs of one bad tenant can wipe years of rental
> profits (if any) out.
> 
> Mark C. McClure
> Managing Attorney
> Law Office of Mark McClure, PS
> "Why Retire With Debt?"
> 1103 West Meeker Street, #101
> Kent, WA 98032
> Office:  253.631.6484
> Email: Mark at McClureLawGroup.com
> Notice of Unavailability:       TBD.
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email contains legal stuff. If you are not the
> intended recipient you could get into a lot of trouble if you read it, and
> even more trouble if you tell someone else about it. So, the best thing to
> do is ignore it and forget you ever saw it. Thank you.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Kary Krismer
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:46 AM
> To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Federally backed mortgages and evictions
> 
> Since this is a Google searchable listserve, I won't name names, but
> there's a rather significant attorney landlord who is getting out of the
> game due to all of this.  I'm guessing maybe 10-20 houses that will no
> longer be rentals (unless the new buyer rents).
> 
> But it's not just that it will only be big players in the game.
> Newspaper reports to the contrary, I don't find that big players invest
> in single family houses.  Assuming I'm right, that means it will be
> harder for parents to raise their kids in a house, as opposed to an
> apartment.  That takes away an important choice for families. My point
> is, it's not just an increased expense resulting from these policies,
> it's also a lifestyle choice.
> 
> Kary L. Krismer
> 206 723-2148
> 
>> On 1/18/2023 5:13 PM, K. Garl Long wrote:
>> 
>> Jeff:
>> 
>> You are. The combat is, and has, caused smaller housing providers to
>> flee the market. The UD statute was implemented to convince people to
>> provide housing by promising that if they were not paid, or the tenant
>> caused problems, the law would promptly and inexpensively restore the
>> owner to possession of their property. Now, the law does the opposite.
>> 
>> This "policy" convinces people not to provide housing.  It is foolish
>> in the short term, and very foolish in the long term. The small
>> housing provider will soon be gone.
>> 
>> 
> 
> ***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

-- 
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.