<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>AND, there is an April 15, 2015, WA case that says so: Barr v. Young, 187 Wn,App 105 (Wash. App. Div. 3 2015): “But in certain actions, including unlawful detainer actions filed by landlords, arbitration is not allowed. RCW 59.18.320(1)(b)(ii).” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:white'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Neumiller<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 9, 2015 2:30 PM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Ok, the lease says the LL and T must try mediation first and if that is unsuccessful, any “unresolved controversy or claim … shall be settled by arbitration administered by the DRC…” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As spurred on by Carmen suggestions, I looked into the waiver provsions more closely and can say there are very few reported cases. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>However, for the good of the order, here I think is the answer. RCW 59.18.320, basically, says that a LL and T may agree to arbitrate “any controversy aring under the provsions of this chapter,<u>except the following:</u> … (b) any situation where court action has been started by either landlord or tenant to enforce rights under this chapter; when the court action substantially affects the controversy, including but not limited to: ….( ii) any unlawful detainer action filed by the landlord pursuant to chapter 59.12 RCW.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>So, the upshot of all of this is that RCW 59.18.320 appears to save an unwitting LL after putting an arbitration provision in the lease. It appears the LL can still proceed with a UD action despite the existence of a mediation/arbitration provision in the lease. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:white'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Carmen Rowe<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 7, 2015 5:23 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration (Paul Neumiller)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>If you are looking for an UD/writ, isn't that outside any provisions on how disputes are to be resolved in general?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>Seems to me no different than how the UD statute trumps a general right to litigate. To me I'd read the contractual clause just dictating the "form" of a general claim. <br><br>But I do not believe you can contractually circumvent the UD statute in general, correct, for the limited purposes of the writ? (not having the statute in front of me) Which would serve to benefit the landlord in this case if they are seeking an UD in the normal judicial fashion.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>If you are talking about damages beyond getting T's out (which it doesn't sound like?) then it would work like any other arbitration & entry of the judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>Unless I misunderstood something ...</span><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'></span><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>Carmen Rowe</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>Attorney / Owner</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'><img border=0 width=450 height=135 id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-SsegebS6iBcmI1cnhVMkR1TVk&revid=0B-SsegebS6iBOU5rSTZoTlMxTHlldFlnL09nTTNPT2FtMjFZPQ" alt="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-SsegebS6iBcmI1cnhVMkR1TVk&revid=0B-SsegebS6iBOU5rSTZoTlMxTHlldFlnL09nTTNPT2FtMjFZPQ"></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#660000;background:white'>1121 Harrison Ave. No. 280 - Centralia, WA 98531</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#660000;background:white'>Phone: (360) 669-3576</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#660000'>Email: </span><a href="mailto:Carmen@GryphonLawGroup.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>Carmen@GryphonLawGroup.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#660000'>Contact us for information on Olympia and Seattle locations.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#444444'>Privileged and confidential: </span></b><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#444444'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:00 PM, <<a href="mailto:wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com" target="_blank">wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>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" 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. UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration (Paul Neumiller)<br> 2. Re: UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration (Bryce Dille)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:09:50 -0800<br>From: Paul Neumiller <<a href="mailto:pneumiller@hotmail.com">pneumiller@hotmail.com</a>><br>To: <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>Subject: [WSBARP] UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration<br>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:BLU436-SMTP111A623488F5FA75F16B77D2280@phx.gbl">BLU436-SMTP111A623488F5FA75F16B77D2280@phx.gbl</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>Saw a new LL client whose lease, lo and behold, calls for mediation and then<br>arbitration for when "a dispute arises out of or relates to this contract,<br>or the breach thereof" using the local Dispute Resolution Center. And<br>then, "judgement upon the Award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered on<br>any court having jurisdiction thereof."<br><br>The meth head tenants are LL/T law savvy ("you can't kick us out until the<br>sheriff comes") and couldn't care less if there is a judgment lien against<br>them. Anyone have this before? I doubt the local DRC has the power to<br>issue an Order for Writ of Restitution. Any argument that this provision<br>does not leave the LL with an adequate remedy? Thanks (and happy Friday).<br>Paul Neumiller<br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20151106/08cfbc72/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20151106/08cfbc72/attachment-0001.html</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:23:37 +0000<br>From: Bryce Dille <<a href="mailto:BryceD@cdb-law.com">BryceD@cdb-law.com</a>><br>To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [WSBARP] UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration<br>Message-ID:<br> <<a href="mailto:B3982DA158E09443BF4EE7AD2BB5825727F729C0@CDBS-SBS.cdb-law.local">B3982DA158E09443BF4EE7AD2BB5825727F729C0@CDBS-SBS.cdb-law.local</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>I think the arbitrators award could provide in the final award that upon request to superior crt the crt will enter a writ of restitution directed to the sheriff to evict tenant.<br><br>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.<br><br>Bryce H. Dille<br>Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC<br>P.O. Box 488<br>Puyallup, WA 98371<br>Voice: <a href="tel:253.848.3513">253.848.3513</a><br>Fax: <a href="tel:253.845.4941">253.845.4941</a><br><a href="mailto:bryced@cdb-law.com">bryced@cdb-law.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:bryced@cdb-law.com">bryced@cdb-law.com</a>><br><br>Business Entity Creation and Management<br>Business, Government and Tax Law<br>Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development<br>Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator<br>Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration<br>Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments<br>Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures<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 Paul Neumiller<br>Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 3:10 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>Subject: [WSBARP] UD and Mandatory Meditation/Arbitration<br><br>Saw a new LL client whose lease, lo and behold, calls for mediation and then arbitration for when "a dispute arises out of or relates to this contract, or the breach thereof" using the local Dispute Resolution Center. And then, "judgement upon the Award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered on any court having jurisdiction thereof."<br>The meth head tenants are LL/T law savvy ("you can't kick us out until the sheriff comes") and couldn't care less if there is a judgment lien against them. Anyone have this before? I doubt the local DRC has the power to issue an Order for Writ of Restitution. Any argument that this provision does not leave the LL with an adequate remedy? Thanks (and happy Friday). Paul Neumiller<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20151106/8f386303/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20151106/8f386303/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" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><br><br>End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 14, Issue 3<br>*************************************<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>