<font color='black' size='2' face='Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'>Craig,
<div> Take a look at 58.17.210. The buyer has a cause of action against the seller and can get attorney's fees. If you represent the seller, then you might consider getting a subdivision approval before the buyer goes to an attorney. If you represent the buyer, you could file suit, or seek to get some after the fact approval and the demand the seller pay all costs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Steve<br>
<br>
<div style="clear:both">
<div><strong><em>Stephen Whitehouse</em></strong></div>
<div><strong><em>Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP</em></strong></div>
<div><strong><em>P.O. Box 1273</em></strong></div>
<div><strong><em>601 W. Railroad Ave.</em></strong></div>
<div><strong><em>Shelton, Wa. 98584<br>
swhite8893@aol.com</em></strong><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: wsbarp-request <wsbarp-request@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2016 12:00 pm<br>
Subject: WSBARP Digest, Vol 27, Issue 26<br>
<br>
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>
wsbarp-<a href="mailto:request@lists.wsbarppt.com">request@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
wsbarp-<a href="mailto:owner@lists.wsbarppt.com">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. Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes v.<br>
Prudhorn (Marc Holmes)<br>
2. Re: Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes<br>
v. Prudhorn (Roger Hawkes)<br>
3. Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates (Mark Vohr)<br>
4. Re: Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
(Paul Neumiller)<br>
5. HOA notice of liens - legal description (Josh Grant)<br>
6. Re: Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates (Doug Schafer)<br>
7. Re: Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates (Mark Vohr)<br>
8. Re: HOA notice of liens - legal description (Richard Holland)<br>
9. illegal subdivision (Craig Gourley)<br>
10. Re: HOA notice of liens - legal description (Jennifer Johnson)<br>
11. Re: illegal subdivision (Eric Nelsen)<br>
12. Re: illegal subdivision (Craig Gourley)<br>
13. Re: HOA notice of liens - legal description (John McCrady)<br>
14. Re: illegal subdivision (John McCrady)<br>
15. Re: illegal subdivision (Paul Neumiller)<br>
16. Re: illegal subdivision (scott scottgthomaslaw.com)<br>
17. Re: illegal subdivision (Jay Goldstein)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:07:25 -0800<br>
From: "Marc Holmes" <<a href="mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com">marc@holmeslawgroup.com</a>><br>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson<br>
Homes v. Prudhorn<br>
Message-ID: <006801d26217$8e5e24b0$ab1a6e10$@com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I'd like some input on a lease question in light of the recent R. Thoreson<br>
Homes v. Prudhorn case.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Client is about to sell a house in Seattle with a rental ADU. There's a<br>
written lease of the ADU for 1 year and 4 days (presumably the 4 days were<br>
simply so the tenants could move in right away and the lease would still run<br>
through the last day of the final month). The lease explicitly states that<br>
it terminates at the end of the lease term and would not convert to month to<br>
month. During the final month of the lease the parties exchanged emails<br>
whereby the tenants solicited and the landlord offered to renew on "all the<br>
same terms" except for a reduction to the parking arrangement. Tenants<br>
replied back that they'd love to stay and "everything you described below<br>
sounds fine to us." The tenants continue paying rent on time and all is<br>
well. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The landlord believes this created a new 1 year renewal period but I'm<br>
concerned that it's actually a 1 year, 4 day lease since it was for a fixed<br>
term. If so, does the statute of frauds come into play since the "renewal"<br>
was only via email and not notarized and render the lease something else.<br>
God forbid it somehow morphs into month to month because the R. Thoreson<br>
case then creates a real problem for the prospective buyer who plans to boot<br>
the tenants at the end of the current term and re-develop the property.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marc Holmes<br>
<br>
Holmes Law Group PLLC<br>
<br>
808 5th Ave N<br>
<br>
Seattle WA 98109<br>
<br>
<<a href="http://holmeslawgroup.com/" target="_blank">http://holmeslawgroup.com/</a>> HolmesLawGroup.com<br>
<br>
<<a href="mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com?">mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com</a>> <a href="mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com">marc@holmeslawgroup.com</a><br>
<br>
Ofc: 206-357-4224<br>
<br>
Cell: 206-849-0853<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/99b56659/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/99b56659/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 22:07:49 +0000<br>
From: Roger Hawkes <Roger@law-hawks.com><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R.<br>
Thoreson Homes v. Prudhorn<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:693DA7DDC963424895D6BBD758595A2169DA014A@HLFSERVER1.law">693DA7DDC963424895D6BBD758595A2169DA014A@HLFSERVER1.law</a>-hawks.local><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Along this same thread: if owner transfers or intends to transfer to an entity owned by the owner does that trigger the allowed ouster based on intent to sell? Most folks developing property should do it within a new entity. Would it make a difference if the new entity was to be owned with someone else?<br>
<br>
Roger Hawkes, WSBA 5173<br>
19909 Ballinger Way NE<br>
Shoreline, WA 98155<br>
<a href="http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/" target="_blank">www.hawkeslawfirm.com<http://www.hawkeslawfirm.com/</a>><br>
206 367 5000 voice<br>
206 367 4005 fax<br>
<br>
From: Marc Holmes [<a href="mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com?">mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 1:07 PM<br>
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes v. Prudhorn<br>
<br>
I'd like some input on a lease question in light of the recent R. Thoreson Homes v. Prudhorn case.<br>
<br>
Client is about to sell a house in Seattle with a rental ADU. There's a written lease of the ADU for 1 year and 4 days (presumably the 4 days were simply so the tenants could move in right away and the lease would still run through the last day of the final month). The lease explicitly states that it terminates at the end of the lease term and would not convert to month to month. During the final month of the lease the parties exchanged emails whereby the tenants solicited and the landlord offered to renew on "all the same terms" except for a reduction to the parking arrangement. Tenants replied back that they'd love to stay and "everything you described below sounds fine to us." The tenants continue paying rent on time and all is well.<br>
<br>
The landlord believes this created a new 1 year renewal period but I'm concerned that it's actually a 1 year, 4 day lease since it was for a fixed term. If so, does the statute of frauds come into play since the "renewal" was only via email and not notarized and render the lease something else. God forbid it somehow morphs into month to month because the R. Thoreson case then creates a real problem for the prospective buyer who plans to boot the tenants at the end of the current term and re-develop the property.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Marc Holmes<br>
Holmes Law Group PLLC<br>
808 5th Ave N<br>
Seattle WA 98109<br>
HolmesLawGroup.com<<a href="http://holmeslawgroup.com/" target="_blank">http://holmeslawgroup.com/</a>><br>
<a href="mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com">marc@holmeslawgroup.com</a><<a href="mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com?">mailto:marc@holmeslawgroup.com</a>><br>
Ofc: 206-357-4224<br>
Cell: 206-849-0853<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/c8cead12/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/c8cead12/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 22:38:47 +0000<br>
From: Mark Vohr <<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com">mcv@ohanafc.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E184C2F71@OHANA100.ofcdomain.local">5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E184C2F71@OHANA100.ofcdomain.local</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
We are trying to record deeds transferring property from one trust to another, and to a successor trustee as the grantors are deceased. The recorder's office is insisting on seeing death certificates for the grantors.<br>
<br>
Is this a common request? Does the recorder have the authority to require this added documentation?<br>
<br>
Signed, Frustrated..... aka<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<br>
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.<br>
Ohana Financial Services<br>
<br>
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal<br>
PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133<br>
T: (206) 782-1189 F: (206) 782-1434<br>
<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com">mcv@ohanafc.com</a><<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com?">mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com</a>> <a href="http://www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/" target="_blank">www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION<br>
<br>
This communication may contain information that is confidential. It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient. If you have received this communication in error. Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.<br>
<br>
This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient. The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender. If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/166bdfcb/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/166bdfcb/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:01:12 +0000<br>
From: Paul Neumiller <<a href="mailto:pneumiller@hotmail.com">pneumiller@hotmail.com</a>><br>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CY4PR04MB07608AF72E6760993F49B9B0D26B0@CY4PR04MB0760.namprd04.prod.outlook.com">CY4PR04MB07608AF72E6760993F49B9B0D26B0@CY4PR04MB0760.namprd04.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Island County is requesting the same.<br>
<br>
[cid:<a href="mailto:image001.jpg@01D261E4.622FE730">image001.jpg@01D261E4.622FE730</a>]<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Mark Vohr<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 2:39 PM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
<br>
We are trying to record deeds transferring property from one trust to another, and to a successor trustee as the grantors are deceased. The recorder's office is insisting on seeing death certificates for the grantors.<br>
<br>
Is this a common request? Does the recorder have the authority to require this added documentation?<br>
<br>
Signed, Frustrated..... aka<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<br>
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.<br>
Ohana Financial Services<br>
<br>
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal<br>
PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133<br>
T: (206) 782-1189 F: (206) 782-1434<br>
<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com">mcv@ohanafc.com</a><<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com?">mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com</a>> <a href="http://www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/" target="_blank">www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION<br>
<br>
This communication may contain information that is confidential. It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient. If you have received this communication in error. Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.<br>
<br>
This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient. The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender. If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/fd67fe64/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/fd67fe64/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 14511 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/fd67fe64/image001-0001.jpg" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/fd67fe64/image001-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:01:58 -0800<br>
From: "Josh Grant" <<a href="mailto:jgrant@accima.com">jgrant@accima.com</a>><br>
To: "wsbar" <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description<br>
Message-ID: <0D6EEEA527D440FEBDB64705AE8506D0@JoshPC><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments. The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?. Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #? An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?. Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist. <br>
<br>
But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.<br>
<br>
Other opinions?<br>
<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/05430bc0/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/05430bc0/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:23:43 -0800<br>
From: Doug Schafer <<a href="mailto:schafer@pobox.com">schafer@pobox.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
Message-ID: <5049b5fd-3afc-ae18-500a-<a href="mailto:300c7e7ca5f0@pobox.com">300c7e7ca5f0@pobox.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/97b17545/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/97b17545/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:40:06 +0000<br>
From: Mark Vohr <<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com">mcv@ohanafc.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E184C321C@OHANA100.ofcdomain.local">5A15CEF1BD64974E93535F28F1B1E04E184C321C@OHANA100.ofcdomain.local</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Thanks all for the feedback.<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.<br>
Ohana Financial Services<br>
<br>
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal<br>
PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133<br>
T: (206) 782-1189 F: (206) 782-1434<br>
<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com">mcv@ohanafc.com</a><<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com?">mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com</a>> <a href="http://www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/" target="_blank">www.ohanafc.com<http://www.ohanafc.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 3:24 PM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Recorder's Office Requiring Death Certificates<br>
<br>
Presuming that the property is being transferred pursuant to the terms of the trust, the county treasurer won't approve the claim of exemption from the Real Estate Excise Tax (so the Recorder/Auditor won't record the deed) unless the required documents are provided.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-61A-202<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__apps.leg.wa.gov_WAC_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D458-2D61A-2D202&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=Viwi5fEbrc_2GhcwLMiI0MNKbLo0eGGuoAjMSy4Nzk4&e=" target="_blank">http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-61A-202<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__apps.leg.wa.gov_WAC_default.aspx-3Fcite-3D458-2D61A-2D202&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=Viwi5fEbrc_2GhcwLMiI0MNKbLo0eGGuoAjMSy4Nzk4&e=</a>> (WAC 458-61A-202)<br>
<br>
(8) Documentation. In order to claim this exemption, the following documentation must be provided: . . .<br>
(b) Trusts. If property is being transferred under the terms of a trust instrument, a certified copy of the death certificate, and a copy of the trust instrument showing the authority of the grantor;<br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.<br>
On 12/29/2016 2:38 PM, Mark Vohr wrote:<br>
We are trying to record deeds transferring property from one trust to another, and to a successor trustee as the grantors are deceased. The recorder's office is insisting on seeing death certificates for the grantors.<br>
<br>
Is this a common request? Does the recorder have the authority to require this added documentation?<br>
<br>
Signed, Frustrated..... aka<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<br>
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.<br>
Ohana Financial Services<br>
<br>
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal<br>
PO Box 33710 Seattle, WA 98133<br>
T: (206) 782-1189 F: (206) 782-1434<br>
<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com">mcv@ohanafc.com</a><<a href="mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com?">mailto:mcv@ohanafc.com</a>> <a href="http://www.ohanafc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ohanafc.com_&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=DTYW6tV7rqqJUbM7wIm7pVKBqH8gLERTOv9BisRClxU&e=" target="_blank">www.ohanafc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ohanafc.com_&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=DTYW6tV7rqqJUbM7wIm7pVKBqH8gLERTOv9BisRClxU&e=</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION<br>
<br>
This communication may contain information that is confidential. It was intended only for the named or a specific recipient. If you have received this communication in error. Please delete it immediately and contact the sender to advise them of improper delivery.<br>
<br>
This communication is not intended to provide legal advice to the recipient. The sender does not represent you as legal counsel and neither this communication or any conversations you may have with the sender creates an attorney client relationship with the sender. If you seek legal advice, you should consult separate legal counsel.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
WSBARP mailing list<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=-vxHqaRYUgN8nTsgbSfpS2J6lnq2HMNqGCsUCZ7x7vU&e=" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DQMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=K1mLMC1eFjwfeeMM-AC6zQ&m=tS5F8fbnnSnhILvqQadyKTHi0Duo0NeHhgt_e_0gThY&s=-vxHqaRYUgN8nTsgbSfpS2J6lnq2HMNqGCsUCZ7x7vU&e=</a>><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/2d519a49/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/2d519a49/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 8<br>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 23:51:45 +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: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:BL2PR15MB1076D663A8945B2122D2F72DC56B0@BL2PR15MB1076.namprd15.prod.outlook.com">BL2PR15MB1076D663A8945B2122D2F72DC56B0@BL2PR15MB1076.namprd15.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
There is a case ? at least one that I know of - that for the life of me (on my phone) I can?t recall the name of at the moment - that says that the auditor?s file number is a sufficient legal as the judge did not consider reference to the Etax affidavit or County records an ?off document? such that it was a deficient legal. Not sure I buy that and I would always include it. That said, since almost every county now requires at least the ?short legal? in order to index the file, the parcel number and the short legal should be enough. To my knowledge, Title Companies do not search based on complete legal descriptions. They are going to use the address and parcel number and the short legal should be confirmation to them that they are looking at the right address. Interested to hear other views though.<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Josh Grant<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 3:02 PM<br>
To: wsbar <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description<br>
<br>
I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments. The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?. Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #? An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?. Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist.<br>
<br>
But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.<br>
<br>
Other opinions?<br>
<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/a8b2971f/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/a8b2971f/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 9<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:46:31 +0000<br>
From: Craig Gourley <<a href="mailto:craig@glgmail.com">craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:SN1PR12MB0877B79DCC5A587549BCD106AE6A0@SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com">SN1PR12MB0877B79DCC5A587549BCD106AE6A0@SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Listmates, I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision. By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer. No BLA, no short plat, just a deed. My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit. Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter. Thanks, Craig<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/aacbe128/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/aacbe128/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 10<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 07:55:52 -0800<br>
From: Jennifer Johnson <<a href="mailto:jmhanigan@cni.net">jmhanigan@cni.net</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description<br>
Message-ID: <E6E1F2F1-F3B8-4FD3-ACE0-<a href="mailto:893EF51ADB70@cni.net">893EF51ADB70@cni.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
If the lien is properly indexed under the property owner?s name and/or the tax parcel number, then the title company should find it.<br>
<br>
Jennifer<br>
<br>
Jennifer Johnson<br>
Attorney | Title Officer<br>
Wahkiakum Title & Escrow Co.<br>
PO Box 39 - 68 Main Street<br>
Cathlamet, WA 98612<br>
(360) 795-3741<br>
(360) 795-3001 (f)<br>
<br>
Serving Wahkiakum County?s Title & Escrow Needs For Over 100 Years<br>
<br>
Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Dec 29, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Josh Grant <<a href="mailto:jgrant@accima.com">jgrant@accima.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments. The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?. Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #? An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?. Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist.<br>
> <br>
> But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.<br>
> <br>
> Other opinions?<br>
> <br>
> Josh<br>
> <br>
> 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>
> _______________________________________________<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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/65d68a3f/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/65d68a3f/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 11<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:24:30 +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] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:8CF6ADB264BB704BB884B2ED9C1931D401886665F0@SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local">8CF6ADB264BB704BB884B2ED9C1931D401886665F0@SBS2011.SayreLawOffices.local</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?<br>
<br>
It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.<br>
<br>
Clear as mud--<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric C. Nelsen<br>
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<br>
1417 31st Ave South<br>
Seattle WA 98144-3909<br>
phone 206-625-0092<br>
fax 206-625-9040<br>
<br>
Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
Listmates, I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision. By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer. No BLA, no short plat, just a deed. My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit. Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter. Thanks, Craig<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/604f1d79/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/604f1d79/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 12<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:46:03 +0000<br>
From: Craig Gourley <<a href="mailto:craig@glgmail.com">craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:SN1PR12MB0877D52C80BC8DC7B42F9E15AE6A0@SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com">SN1PR12MB0877D52C80BC8DC7B42F9E15AE6A0@SN1PR12MB0877.namprd12.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Thank you Eric, The county assigned it a separate TPN back in '78 when the transfer was made but are denying it lot status. Lots of BLA activity and revisions of short plats involving this piece of dirt over the years, several of which had the wrong parties signing so the Grantor's had no interest in the land they purported to transfer. Typical problem made worse by people trying to fix it. Should be a fun case, just need to figure out who the defendant should be!<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?<br>
<br>
It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.<br>
<br>
Clear as mud--<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric C. Nelsen<br>
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<br>
1417 31st Ave South<br>
Seattle WA 98144-3909<br>
phone 206-625-0092<br>
fax 206-625-9040<br>
<br>
Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
Listmates, I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision. By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer. No BLA, no short plat, just a deed. My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit. Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter. Thanks, Craig<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/b4b9f285/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/b4b9f285/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 13<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:59:25 -0800<br>
From: John McCrady <<a href="mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com">j.mccrady@pstitle.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6234A584C@PSTMAILV.pstitle.com">A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6234A584C@PSTMAILV.pstitle.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
There are of course several layers to this question, but my quick reply is:<br>
<br>
If the CCR establish a lien upon assessment, then the recording of the lien is not necessary for the lien to attach to the property. The recording is only to assure that a Title Search will disclose the existence of the already perfected lien.<br>
The title company may pick up the lien based on the included parcel number, as our plant postings should include the filed lien notwithstanding the lack of a legal description. However, without the legal description we cannot be certain we will pick it up.<br>
Also, notwithstanding the title company posting issues, the legal description is required for the recorded lien to be in the official chain of title to the property.<br>
My bottom line is, once it has been decided to record the lien, it doesn?t make sense to not include the legal description on the lien.<br>
<br>
John McCrady<br>
Counsel<br>
Puget Sound Title Company<br>
5350 Orchard Street West<br>
University Place WA 98466<br>
253-476-5721<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Jennifer Johnson<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 7:56 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] HOA notice of liens - legal description<br>
<br>
If the lien is properly indexed under the property owner?s name and/or the tax parcel number, then the title company should find it.<br>
<br>
Jennifer<br>
<br>
Jennifer Johnson<br>
Attorney | Title Officer<br>
Wahkiakum Title & Escrow Co.<br>
PO Box 39 - 68 Main Street<br>
Cathlamet, WA 98612<br>
(360) 795-3741<br>
(360) 795-3001 (f)<br>
<br>
Serving Wahkiakum County?s Title & Escrow Needs For Over 100 Years<br>
<br>
Agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Dec 29, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Josh Grant <<a href="mailto:jgrant@accima.com">jgrant@accima.com</a><<a href="mailto:jgrant@accima.com?">mailto:jgrant@accima.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I have a HOA client who files notices of liens when members do not pay assessments. The CC&R?s in this case do not require such recording before a lien exists, but allows the HOA to file a public ?lien?. Is it not a best practice to include the legal description on the notice of lien along with the parcel #? An auditor?s clerk advised the client to simply remove the ?exhibit ?A? which contained a legal description because ?it wasn?t needed, the parcel # is enough and it saves $1.00?. Of course now the document recorded makes reference to an exhibit ?A? which doesn?t exist.<br>
<br>
But my concern with this legal advice is that a title company may not pickup the notice, and if the lot is sold the nonpayment of liens might not appear as a special exception and the sale closes without the payment to the HOA, which is one of the main reasons for filing a notice of lien in the first place.<br>
<br>
Other opinions?<br>
<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
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>
_______________________________________________<br>
WSBARP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto: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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/630e2b41/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/630e2b41/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 14<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:15:43 -0800<br>
From: John McCrady <<a href="mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com">j.mccrady@pstitle.com</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6234A5854@PSTMAILV.pstitle.com">A8106026B40C9544A17DC5E44A2003EE01E6234A5854@PSTMAILV.pstitle.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I agree with Eric's analysis.<br>
RCW 58.17.030 states that "every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter......"<br>
RCW 58.17.300 states that "any person......who violates any provision of this chapter.....shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and each sale...or transfer....shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense."<br>
I am not aware of any authority holding that a transfer in violation of the subdivision code is void or voidable. If anyone is aware of such authority I would love to hear about it.<br>
<br>
John McCrady<br>
Counsel<br>
Puget Sound Title Company<br>
5350 Orchard Street West<br>
University Place WA 98466<br>
253-476-5721<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?<br>
<br>
It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.<br>
<br>
Clear as mud--<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric C. Nelsen<br>
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<br>
1417 31st Ave South<br>
Seattle WA 98144-3909<br>
phone 206-625-0092<br>
fax 206-625-9040<br>
<br>
Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
Listmates, I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision. By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer. No BLA, no short plat, just a deed. My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can't get a building permit. Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter. Thanks, Craig<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/64722b4b/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/64722b4b/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 15<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:35:48 +0000<br>
From: Paul Neumiller <<a href="mailto:pneumiller@hotmail.com">pneumiller@hotmail.com</a>><br>
To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CY4PR04MB0760B2C3C1A8ABFF316081D6D26A0@CY4PR04MB0760.namprd04.prod.outlook.com">CY4PR04MB0760B2C3C1A8ABFF316081D6D26A0@CY4PR04MB0760.namprd04.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br>
<br>
For the sake of the conversation, CA does allow the initial buyer up to a year after the discovery to void the deed, sale, or contract of sale. (Don?t know if there is a corresponding WA provision):<br>
CA Gov. Code 66499.32.<br>
<br>
(a) Any deed of conveyance, sale or contract to sell real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of the provisions of this division, or of the provisions of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division, is voidable at the sole option of the grantee, buyer or person contracting to purchase, his heirs, personal representative, or trustee in insolvency or bankruptcy within one year after the date of discovery of the violation of the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant to the provisions of this division, but the deed of conveyance, sale or contract to sell is binding upon any successor in interest of the grantee, buyer or person contracting to purchase, other than those above enumerated, and upon the grantor, vendor, or person contracting to sell, or his assignee, heir or devisee.<br>
<br>
[cid:<a href="mailto:image001.jpg@01D26290.D996FF50">image001.jpg@01D26290.D996FF50</a>]<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of John McCrady<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 11:16 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
I agree with Eric?s analysis.<br>
RCW 58.17.030 states that ?every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter???<br>
RCW 58.17.300 states that ?any person??who violates any provision of this chapter?..shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and each sale?or transfer?.shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.?<br>
I am not aware of any authority holding that a transfer in violation of the subdivision code is void or voidable. If anyone is aware of such authority I would love to hear about it.<br>
<br>
John McCrady<br>
Counsel<br>
Puget Sound Title Company<br>
5350 Orchard Street West<br>
University Place WA 98466<br>
253-476-5721<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?<br>
<br>
It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.<br>
<br>
Clear as mud--<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric C. Nelsen<br>
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<br>
1417 31st Ave South<br>
Seattle WA 98144-3909<br>
phone 206-625-0092<br>
fax 206-625-9040<br>
<br>
Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
Listmates, I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision. By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer. No BLA, no short plat, just a deed. My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can?t get a building permit. Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter. Thanks, Craig<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 14511 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/image001-0001.jpg" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/image001-0001.jpg</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: Paul Neumiller.vcf<br>
Type: text/x-vcard<br>
Size: 1628 bytes<br>
Desc: Paul Neumiller.vcf<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/PaulNeumiller-0001.vcf" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/7c8273e2/PaulNeumiller-0001.vcf</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 16<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:40:15 -0800 (PST)<br>
From: "scott scottgthomaslaw.com" <<a href="mailto:scott@scottgthomaslaw.com">scott@scottgthomaslaw.com</a>><br>
To: John McCrady <<a href="mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com">j.mccrady@pstitle.com</a>>, WSBA Real Property Listserv<br>
<<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:1767196272.5178.1483126815987@webmail3.networksolutionsemail.com">1767196272.5178.1483126815987@webmail3.networksolutionsemail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/6fcfca00/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/6fcfca00/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 17<br>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:55:24 +0000<br>
From: Jay Goldstein <<a href="mailto:jay@jaglaw.net">jay@jaglaw.net</a>><br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:MWHPR12MB1727B5AE6204E2E5AA4CFF0BCF6A0@MWHPR12MB1727.namprd12.prod.outlook.com">MWHPR12MB1727B5AE6204E2E5AA4CFF0BCF6A0@MWHPR12MB1727.namprd12.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
This form attached seems to fit this situation<br>
<br>
J<br>
<br>
Jay A. Goldstein<br>
[Logo Color 946x243 pixels]<br>
1800 Cooper Point RD SW NO. 8 | Olympia, WA 98502<br>
Telephone 360.352.1970 | Fax 360.357.0844 | <a href="http://www.jaglaw.net<http://www.jaglaw.net/" target="_blank">www.jaglaw.net<http://www.jaglaw.net/</a>><br>
<a href="mailto:jay@jaglaw.net">jay@jaglaw.net</a><<a href="mailto:jay@jaglaw.net?">mailto:jay@jaglaw.net</a>><br>
<br>
Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice.<br>
The purpose of this email is to transmit a message or document.<br>
Should you not be the intended recipient of this email message,<br>
please reply advising of the mistake and then delete this message<br>
from your computer. Should you have any questions,<br>
please call the Sender at 360-352-1970.<br>
No trees were killed in sending this message<br>
(however, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced).<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of scott scottgthomaslaw.com<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 11:40 AM<br>
To: John McCrady <<a href="mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com">j.mccrady@pstitle.com</a>>; WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
? See The Newport Yacht Basin Association of Condominium Owners v. Supreme Northwest, Inc., 168 Wn.App. 56, 73, 277 P.3d 18<br>
? (2012).<br>
<br>
<br>
?<br>
On December 30, 2016 at 11:15 AM John McCrady <<a href="mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com">j.mccrady@pstitle.com</a><<a href="mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com?">mailto:j.mccrady@pstitle.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I agree with Eric?s analysis.<br>
<br>
RCW 58.17.030 states that ?every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter???<br>
<br>
RCW 58.17.300 states that ?any person??who violates any provision of this chapter?..shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and each sale?or transfer?.shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.?<br>
<br>
I am not aware of any authority holding that a transfer in violation of the subdivision code is void or voidable. If anyone is aware of such authority I would love to hear about it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
John McCrady<br>
<br>
Counsel<br>
<br>
Puget Sound Title Company<br>
<br>
5350 Orchard Street West<br>
<br>
University Place WA 98466<br>
<br>
253-476-5721<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen<br>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:25 AM<br>
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>>><br>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I am pretty sure deed is valid--a deed just conveys real property even if it's just a postage stamp of land that it describes, and zoning/building codes and "legal tax parcels" are all just overlayers of regulation. I think what you have is a tax parcel that is owned not by undivided interests in the whole (tenants in common), but in separate chunks--I think that would be called ownership in severalty?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It's really a category problem--depends on what you choose to define as "parcel." "Parcel" could mean the land described in a deed, or it could mean a tax parcel as defined by the county. The county won't recognize the deed parcel as a tax parcel, so for all tax and administrative purposes, the tax parcel is owned partly by one person and partly by another.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Clear as mud--<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Eric C. Nelsen<br>
<br>
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC<br>
<br>
1417 31st Ave South<br>
<br>
Seattle WA 98144-3909<br>
<br>
phone 206-625-0092<br>
<br>
fax 206-625-9040<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please Note that We Have Moved. We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel). Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: wsbarp-<a href="mailto:bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 5:47 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>><br>
Subject: [WSBARP] illegal subdivision<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Listmates, I am wondering what rights are created when property is transferred via an illegal subdivision. By example, someone transfers the north one third of a lot to a buyer. No BLA, no short plat, just a deed. My initial presumption is that buyer owns the property but just can?t get a building permit. Is the transfer void on its face or voidable or neither? I am being lazy tonight and thought I would ask those who may have already researched the matter. Thanks, Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Gourley Law Group<br>
<br>
Snohomish Escrow<br>
<br>
The Exchange Connection<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1002 10th Street / PO Box 1091<br>
<br>
Snohomish, WA 98291<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
360.568.5065<br>
<br>
360.568.8092 fax<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com">Craig@glgmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:Craig@glgmail.com?">mailto:Craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WSBARP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><<a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com?">mailto: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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 6423 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/image001-0001.jpg" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/image001-0001.jpg</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013.pdf<br>
Type: application/pdf<br>
Size: 25544 bytes<br>
Desc: T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013.pdf<br>
URL: <<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013-0001.pdf" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161230/95ecdb9c/T1002-Contingency_Addendum__Property_Being_Platted__Aug_2013-0001.pdf</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 27, Issue 26<br>
**************************************<br>
</div>
</div>
</font>