<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Paul, you wrote that the
HOA was considering an appeal of the small claims court (SCC)
case, and inquired about relevant cases. I believe that it is not
widely known among lawyers that an appeal of a SCC case in not a
RALJ appeal -- additional argument and briefing are not allowed in
the appeal of a SCC case (unlike a RALJ appeal). The superior
court judge or commissioner simply listens, in chambers (or
wherever), to an audio recording of the SCC hearing, reviews the
written record, and makes a ruling. So even if there are relevant
cases that were not presented to the SCC judge, the HOA should not
on appeal be allowed to brief and argue those relevant cases to
the reviewing superior court judge.<br>
<br>
The 2013 SCC booklet by the NW Justice Project states:<br>
<br>
"If you appeal, the superior court (not small claims court) will
consider your appeal. The superior court will only look at the
written record and evidence from your original small claims court
trial.8 That means, unless the superior court says so, you may not
bring new evidence or speak to support your claim again. There
will be no jury, no lawyers, or new claims, unless the superior
court allows them."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/issues/consumer-debt/small-claims-court">http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/issues/consumer-debt/small-claims-court</a><br>
<br>
I disagree with that passage's inclusion of "unless the superior
court says so" because the 2001 legislation that changed the
appellate review from a "trial de novo" to a "de novo review of
the record" amended RCW 12.36.055 and struck the previous language
that allowed parties equal argument time and the previous language
stating that the reviewing judge might grant permission for
additional evidence and testimony. The House Bill Report for the
1991 bill summarized testimony in support of it: "Both the
superior and district courts feel this bill would be helpful by
speeding up reviews of small claims appeals. Superior court judges
can conduct them during the down time, and they will not be
required to schedule time for witnesses to appear." So appellate
review of a SCC ruling is an unscheduled "down time review."<br>
<br>
I attach the 1991 legislation to which I have appended its Senate
and House bill reports.<br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/21/2016 2:03 PM, Paul Neumiller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BLU437-SMTP7430DA7150974C0C313992D26E0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Arf, indeed! I
knew this was a shot in the dark.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thanks, Rob.
You have confirmed my understanding that this is a muddled
area. The HOA’s language refers to an: 1) “enforcement
proceeding,” 2) “whether in law or equity”, 3) and awarded
by the “court.” I think this all points up to the
conclusion that the drafters intended for the prevailing
party to receive atty fees only in the context of
litigation. But you never know that the courts will say
so that’s why I asked the question. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">BTW, this is a
huge development and highly unlikely to ever revised their
CC&Rs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Rob Wilson-Hoss<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com"><wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Paul,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"> I think this is going to depend
on the language of the governing documents. In order to get
attorney fees, as you know, you need a basis in contract or
statute or equity or some other source. Association
governing documents can provide that basis, but some of them
clearly say, <i>upon litigation</i>, and some say, <i>whenever
a lawyer is asked to think about this at all whether or
not the matter proceeds to litigation.</i> Mine say, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">If the Board
of Directors is required to expend any funds, with or
without litigation, in pursuit of the collection of any
assessments, as defined herein, including the payment of any
real property or other taxes associated with the subject
lot; the assertion of or defense to any claims regarding the
authority, jurisdiction or exercise of any of the powers of
the Association; the assertion of or defense to any claims
regarding the personal or real property of the Association;
the correction of any violation of Fabulous Acres Country
Club covenants and/or rules; or with regard to any other
dispute concerning its actions and/or powers; all expenses,
including but not limited to attorney, accountant, other
expert, title report and surveyor fees; lot condition
remediation costs; and all other costs of litigation,
including court and discovery expenses; and any and all
other amounts reasonably expended in the process of
collection, dispute resolution or correction; shall be paid
by the member or person or other entity responsible.<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;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"> Of course, whether your
recorded running covenants allow that, or allow you to amend
to that, after Chiwawa, is another question entirely. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"> Arf (always the last word in
any discussion that involves Chiwawa).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"> The second question is, what
does 64.38.050 mean, exactly? I have heard of judges saying,
no, you can't get fees under the statute because the dispute
does not involve a "violation of the provisions of this
chapter...." But the provisions of the chapter include the
very expansive language about the rights of the association,
at .020, including fines and so on; and especially as the
fining authority is spelled out, the underlying dispute that
resulted in the fines was really a dispute that the
association had the right to do what it did. Which is a
dispute about the authority of the association under the
powers statute, so it really is about a violation of the
provisions of the chapter. And really, a strict reading of
.050 pretty much eliminates its use as a basis for attorney
fees in most real life situations. To me, that is the most
telling way of looking at it. A strict reading means, a
general member is telling the Board, you have violated your
duties under this chapter," but there is no direct chapter
provision that says to general members, you all have to
follow the rules. So does that mean that in practical
effect, the attorney fee provision is only available to use
against associations? What a disaster that would be -
general members playing gotcha with small rules and getting
attorney fee awards, while associations can't get attorney
fees for exercising their statutory powers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"> But this is so far beyond what
most Superior Court judges, let alone District Court judges,
ever see or get training about; and from what we have seen
lately, the appellate interpretations of the HOA Act have
been, at the very least, "interesting." You can expect to
get a different response from different judges. There is
very little predictability in much of real property law, and
that is especially true for HOA decisions <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">Rob<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">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;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="www.hossandwilsonhoss.com"><span
style="color:blue">www.hossandwilson-hoss.com</span></a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rob@hctc.com">rob@hctc.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span
style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;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;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><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"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a></a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Neumiller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] HOAs and Atty Fees<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">HOA member engages in violation behavior.
HOA holds many meetings and starts the fining process. Both
sides “lawyer up” and multiple letters are exchanged. Member
backs down and fixes violation before any court action is
taken. HOA spent about $5k in attorney fees getting to that
point. The HOA’s CC&Rs state the “the party prevailing in
any enforcement proceeding, whether in law or equity, shall
have from his opponent any attorney’s fees that the court may
deem reasonable.” So, for grins and giggles, the HOA took the
member to small claims court to recoup its attorney fees.
Court said “not so fast, there was no court action here so the
CC&Rs atty fees provision and RCW 64.38.050 don’t apply”.
(HOA has 30 days to appeal decision.) My research is reveals
nothing regarding recouping attorney fees when there is no
court action under these circumstances. All reported cases
citing RCW 64.38.050 involve filed cases. Any cases out
there? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>