<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>I find it very difficult to reconcile today's decision with Wilkinson v. Chiwawa. Filmore says that whether or not leasing is permitted in a unit is a change in use from residential uses permitted; Chiwawa said that VRBOs (short term rentals) are not commercial uses but considered the same as single-family residential uses. I know there is much language in both that could be used to argue one way or another, and each is premised on the particular governing documents, but really? In Filmore, to conclude that leasing provisions of the covenants are in the section about uses means that the inquiry is over? I have already posted my incredulity at the majority decision in Chiwawa, and I was far kinder to the majority than the dissents were in that case. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Rob<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt'>Robert D. Wilson-Hoss <br>Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP <br>236 West Birch Street <br>Shelton, WA 98584 <br>360 426-2999<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><a href="www.hossandwilsonhoss.com"><span style='color:blue'>www.hossandwilson-hoss.com</span></a><br>rob@hctc.com</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed above) and immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;text-transform:uppercase'>This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. </span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>To the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have the right to seek advice of legal counsel.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Patrick McDonald<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv<br><b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court’s decision in <i>Filmore</i> came out today. I’ve attached it here. The court affirmed the lower courts by ruling that 90% of votes in the Association (as opposed to 67%) were required to adopt an amendment to the condominium declaration capping the number of rentals. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Unfortunately (in my opinion at least), the court’s decision turned on the specific language in the condominium declaration before it. The court expressly declined to apply and interpret the amendment provisions of the Washington Condominium Act (RCW 64.34.264), which may have provided a bright-line, blanket rule that all New Act condominiums could have relied on. Instead, the decision leaves some gray area for many New Act condominiums depending on the specific wording in their declarations. And the opinion could have effects on other types of amendments beyond leasing restrictions. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Patrick McDonald<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>________________________<br><b>Pody & McDonald, PLLC</b><br>1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410<br>Seattle, WA 98101-3106<br>T: 206-467-1559<br>F: 206-467-4489<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>