<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
</head><body><p>No water, no sewer, no electricity? Mechanic's lien filed by contractors installing utilities, doing site design, etc.? Land development proposal not vested and the rules change? You could write a great law school test question using these facts.<br></p><blockquote type="cite">On June 23, 2015 at 2:27 PM Steve Tubbs <steven.tubbs@comcast.net> wrote:<br><br><div>Hazardous waste?; developer bankruptcy? with voidable transfers?; easements of record discovered, or imposed as a condition of plat approval? Lots of fun stuff for a litigator if things go sideways (Murphy's Law).</div><br><div><div>On Jun 23, 2015, at 2:20 PM, Josh Grant <<a href="mailto:jgrant@ACCIMA.COM">jgrant@ACCIMA.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"><div>Developer is developing a 40 acre piece. He will be short platting it into 5 acre pieces. Surveyor is telling him this should be no problem in getting this approved.</div><div> </div><div>My client is a prospective buyer. They have a legal description for his five acres from the surveyor. He wants to get going with a new house. I told him, “no, you have to wait til the short plat is approved, for a bunch of legal reasons, but in addition the bank won’t lend you the $250,000 for the new house til you are a fee owner”.</div><div> </div><div>So now the two of them have agreed as follows:</div><div> </div><div>Developer will sell the 40 acres to the client for the agreed upon purchase price of the five acre ($35,000). Developer will continue to pay all costs to get the short plat approved (about a year from now). Developer will be obligated to pay all costs even though client will be signing the applications etc. Developer will be granted an option to purchase the 35 acres back when the short plat is finally approved for $1.00.</div><div> </div><div>Would the 1% excise tax be based on the $35,000 first sale? Probably. The transfer back of the 35 acres for $1.00 plus all the development costs... what would the excise tax be based on?</div><div>I see lots of problems from the developer’s side, but what else would the buyer be exposed to if this never gets approved?</div><div> </div><div>and if this is a doable thing, anyone have forms for the option to purchase ? (yeah right).</div><div> </div><div>Thanks</div><div> </div><div>Josh</div><div> </div><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">Joshua F. Grant, PS<br>Attorney at Law<br>P. O. Box 619<br>Wilbur, WA 99185<br>tel 509 647 5578<br>fax 509 647 2734<br></div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>WSBARP mailing list<br><a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</blockquote></div><br></blockquote><p><br> </p><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>WSBARP mailing list<br>WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com<br>http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</blockquote><p><br> </p><p class="io-ox-signature">Scott G. Thomas<br>Law Office of Scott G. Thomas<br>1204 Cleveland Avenue<br>Mount Vernon, WA 98273<br>(360) 503-1042<br>www.scottgthomaslaw.com<br><br>Because this is a communication from a lawyer, it necessarily contains warnings such as this. I am a lawyer, but unless we have entered into an agreement for legal services, I am not your lawyer. And, if this message was intended for someone else but you have inadvertently received it, I ask that you delete the message and let me know you received it so that I can take steps to make sure you do not receive messages in the future. Thank you.</p></body></html>