<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">I wonder why they took it at all if they are not going to give guideline on the law, in sorely needed area & topic at that ... maybe they felt that a few conflicting confusing cases for sake of job security for real estate lawyers was warranted, as in the formerly-known-as-economic-loss-rule. <br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif" size="2">Carmen Rowe</font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><i>Attorney / Owner<br></i></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><img src="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-SsegebS6iBcmI1cnhVMkR1TVk&revid=0B-SsegebS6iBOU5rSTZoTlMxTHlldFlnL09nTTNPT2FtMjFZPQ" height="60" width="200"></font></div></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2">1121 Harrison Ave. No. 280 - Centralia, WA 98531</font></div><div><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2">Phone: (360) 669-3576</font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2">Email: Carmen@GryphonLawGroup.com<br><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><i>Contact us for information on Olympia and Seattle locations.</i><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#444444" size="1"><b>Privileged and confidential: </b>This message is confidential, and we thank you for your respect in not sharing this email with anyone other than the person to whom it is addressed;and if you received it by accident, deleting it and disregarding any information it contains.</font></div><font face="Trebuchet MS"><div><br></div></font><div dir="ltr"><font face="Trebuchet MS"></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:wsbarp-owner@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-owner@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Excise Tax Question (Richard Holland)<br>
2. Looking For An Estate Final Accounting Spreadsheet (Rob Rowley)<br>
3. Filmore Supreme Court opinion (Patrick McDonald)<br>
4. Re: Filmore Supreme Court opinion (Rob Wilson-Hoss)<br>
5. Re: Filmore Supreme Court opinion (Eric Nelsen)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:19:19 +0000<br>
From: Richard Holland <<a href="mailto:rich@pnwle.com">rich@pnwle.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Excise Tax Question<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CY1PR0601MB14050E7D31D9FD4BB0CB4D9BC5690@CY1PR0601MB1405.namprd06.prod.outlook.com">CY1PR0601MB14050E7D31D9FD4BB0CB4D9BC5690@CY1PR0601MB1405.namprd06.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
While I have a myriad of questions, the simplest form boils down to this: "A" is an entity with a contractual relationship with "B" - but does not qualify as a nominee for "B" - according to the exemption as I understand it. Both are corporations where A is the 'servicer' for 'client' B. Is there an exemption that would cover a transfer of real estate from A to B for which A does not receive payment from B?<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150902/1146ee32/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150902/1146ee32/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:49:00 -0700<br>
From: Rob Rowley <<a href="mailto:rob@rowleylegal.com">rob@rowleylegal.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA RPPT <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Looking For An Estate Final Accounting Spreadsheet<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:7f55f0618dd072963b6de2dc4fa9f44c@mail.gmail.com">7f55f0618dd072963b6de2dc4fa9f44c@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I am hoping somebody would be so kind as to forward to me an Excel<br>
spreadsheet that I can use to prepare a formal accounting to be filed with<br>
the court. It would also be the document which would allocate monies and<br>
real property between heirs of an estate.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In other words, not a simple Word document which I've used in the past but<br>
something with more ?bells and whistles? which allow for numerous debits<br>
and credits against each of the heirs of the estate where the estate<br>
consists of cash and dirt.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please note that effective May 15, 2015, my new address is 7 South Howard<br>
St., Suite 218, Spokane, WA 99201. All other contact information remains<br>
the same.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*Robert R. Rowley* | Attorney at Law<br>
<br>
7 S. Howard St, Suite 218<br>
<br>
Spokane, WA 99201<br>
<br>
Telephone: <a href="tel:%28509%29%20252-5074" value="+15092525074">(509) 252-5074</a><br>
<br>
Mobile: <a href="tel:%28509%29%20994-1143" value="+15099941143">(509) 994-1143</a><br>
<br>
Facsimile: <a href="tel:%28509%29%20928-3084" value="+15099283084">(509) 928-3084</a><br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:rob@rowleylegal.com">rob@rowleylegal.com</a><br>
<br>
Web Site: <a href="http://www.rowleylegal.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.rowleylegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in<br>
Washington and Idaho.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<<a href="https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal</a>><br>
<<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rob-rowley/11/172/b20" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rob-rowley/11/172/b20</a>><br>
<<a href="https://twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY</a>><br>
<<a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/robert-r-rowley-spokane" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.yelp.com/biz/robert-r-rowley-spokane</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected<br>
by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable<br>
protections. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this<br>
message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the<br>
message. Thank you for your assistance.<br>
<br>
DISCLAIMER: You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means<br>
are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not<br>
reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be<br>
applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very<br>
well reach a different conclusion.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 20360 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image001-0001.jpg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image001-0001.jpg</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image003.gif<br>
Type: image/gif<br>
Size: 1317 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image003-0001.gif" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image003-0001.gif</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image004.gif<br>
Type: image/gif<br>
Size: 1295 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image004-0001.gif" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image004-0001.gif</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image005.gif<br>
Type: image/gif<br>
Size: 1351 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image005-0001.gif" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image005-0001.gif</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image008.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 2557 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image008-0001.jpg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image008-0001.jpg</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image009.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 939 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image009-0001.jpg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/89fca530/image009-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:48:55 -0700<br>
From: Patrick McDonald <<a href="mailto:pmcdonald@podymcdonaldlaw.com">pmcdonald@podymcdonaldlaw.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:0D9274D4-6B41-4AB3-A765-6EEFAE2F159B@podymcdonaldlaw.com">0D9274D4-6B41-4AB3-A765-6EEFAE2F159B@podymcdonaldlaw.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br>
<br>
For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court?s decision in Filmore 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Patrick McDonald<br>
________________________<br>
Pody & McDonald, PLLC<br>
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410<br>
Seattle, WA 98101-3106<br>
T: 206-467-1559<br>
F: 206-467-4489<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/attachment-0002.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/attachment-0002.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: Filmore.pdf<br>
Type: application/pdf<br>
Size: 236109 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/Filmore-0001.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/Filmore-0001.pdf</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/attachment-0003.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b0a4ab30/attachment-0003.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:29:27 -0700<br>
From: "Rob Wilson-Hoss" <<a href="mailto:rob@hctc.com">rob@hctc.com</a>><br>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion<br>
Message-ID: <06e201d0e676$774f00a0$65ed01e0$@com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
I find it very difficult to reconcile today's decision with Wilkinson v.<br>
Chiwawa. Filmore says that whether or not leasing is permitted in a unit is<br>
a change in use from residential uses permitted; Chiwawa said that VRBOs<br>
(short term rentals) are not commercial uses but considered the same as<br>
single-family residential uses. I know there is much language in both that<br>
could be used to argue one way or another, and each is premised on the<br>
particular governing documents, but really? In Filmore, to conclude that<br>
leasing provisions of the covenants are in the section about uses means that<br>
the inquiry is over? I have already posted my incredulity at the majority<br>
decision in Chiwawa, and I was far kinder to the majority than the dissents<br>
were in that case.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Robert D. Wilson-Hoss<br>
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP<br>
236 West Birch Street<br>
Shelton, WA 98584<br>
360 426-2999<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.hossandwilson-hoss.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.hossandwilson-hoss.com</a><br>
<a href="mailto:rob@hctc.com">rob@hctc.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain<br>
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure<br>
under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified<br>
that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly<br>
prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us by<br>
reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed above)<br>
and immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments.<br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to<br>
collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. To<br>
the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. ? 1692)<br>
applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the<br>
condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to<br>
it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have<br>
the right to seek advice of legal counsel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Patrick McDonald<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:49 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv<br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court?s decision in<br>
Filmore came out today. I?ve attached it here. The court affirmed the lower<br>
courts by ruling that 90% of votes in the Association (as opposed to 67%)<br>
were required to adopt an amendment to the condominium declaration capping<br>
the number of rentals.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Unfortunately (in my opinion at least), the court?s decision turned on the<br>
specific language in the condominium declaration before it. The court<br>
expressly declined to apply and interpret the amendment provisions of the<br>
Washington Condominium Act (RCW 64.34.264), which may have provided a<br>
bright-line, blanket rule that all New Act condominiums could have relied<br>
on. Instead, the decision leaves some gray area for many New Act<br>
condominiums depending on the specific wording in their declarations. And<br>
the opinion could have effects on other types of amendments beyond leasing<br>
restrictions.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Patrick McDonald<br>
<br>
________________________<br>
Pody & McDonald, PLLC<br>
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410<br>
Seattle, WA 98101-3106<br>
T: 206-467-1559<br>
F: 206-467-4489<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b682610a/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/b682610a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:38:15 +0000<br>
From: Eric Nelsen <<a href="mailto:Eric@sayrelawoffices.com">Eric@sayrelawoffices.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<8CF6ADB264BB704BB884B2ED9C1931D40187EBE19B@SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
A magnificent punt by a unanimous Supreme Court--avoiding ruling on any issue of law at all, and effectively confining the case to its facts. Do you have any idea why they so carefully avoided making a binding ruling?<br>
<br>
And I wonder--did the CC&Rs have one of those miscellaneous provisions that says headings and titles are for convenience only and aren't to be used for interpretation of the clauses themselves? Justice Gonzalez's opinion hinges on the outline structure of the CC&Rs.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric C. Nelsen<br>
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<br>
1320 University St<br>
Seattle WA 98101-2837<br>
phone <a href="tel:206-625-0092" value="+12066250092">206-625-0092</a><br>
fax <a href="tel:206-625-9040" value="+12066259040">206-625-9040</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Patrick McDonald<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:49 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv<br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Filmore Supreme Court opinion<br>
<br>
For community association practitioners - the Supreme Court's decision in Filmore 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Patrick McDonald<br>
________________________<br>
Pody & McDonald, PLLC<br>
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1410<br>
Seattle, WA 98101-3106<br>
T: 206-467-1559<br>
F: 206-467-4489<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/fde98677/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150903/fde98677/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WSBARP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><br>
<br>
End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3<br>
*************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>