<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:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size: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-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Well, it isn't real property, but others may know more than I about that. What I do know is that this statute is overdue for a serious overhaul. There is a proposed amendment before the Legislature but it only gets about a tenth of the way towards solving the problem. Landlords have more juice in Olympia than tenants, apparently. <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"'>Sheriff's departments are really challenged by this statute, and I don't blame them. Much better to find another way to deal with the stuff, such as the statutory option. It may be more expensive for the landlord, but dumping the junk on the street is just bad in every way. Your neighbors will despise you, the Sheriff's department will fight you any way it can, and your karma will be dramatically violated. <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"'>By the way, if this is in a development with covenants, there may be a weird twist. In most such developments, the public streets are really only rights of way over the lots, which each extend to the middle of the street. So, if the covenants prohibit dumping rubbish or trash on a lot, or nuisances in general, or noxious or offensive things on lots, then in actuality, if the landlord is dumping this stuff on the nearest public property, and we assume for the sake of argument that the right of way is public property, then if the landlord dumps the stuff on the nearest public property, he or she is dumping it on his own lot (the part that is overlain by the public right of way, but still part of his own lot) and in violation of the covenants. I have made this argument successfully, against a landlord who really deserved to be "corrected."<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 href="www.hossandwilsonhoss.com"><span style='color:blue'>www.hossandwilson-hoss.com</span></a><br><a href="mailto:rob@hctc.com"><span style='color:blue'>rob@hctc.com</span></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"'> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Neumiller<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com<br><b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Evictions & Vehicles<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>After finally working the issues out with city and county officials, I have got them to back off and not arrest or fine my landlord clients for moving the tenant’s personal property to the nearest public property (they tried to charge littering and illegal dumping of garbage.) RCW 59.18.312 says, in part, “If the tenant or the tenant's representative objects to the storage of the property or the landlord elects not to store the property because the tenant has not served a written request on the landlord to do so, the property shall be deposited upon the nearest public property and may not be stored by the landlord.…”) BUT, the hold out are the evicting sheriffs who says that if my landlord client moves (or drags) a tenant’s vehicle to the sidewalk and street, they’ll charge the landlord (“because we’ll know who moved it there”). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Before I move up the chain of command for my local sheriff and point out RCW 59.18.312, I was wondering if any of you had the same problem and how you resolved it. Do you agree that a tenant’s vehicle that is left on the premises after the execution of a writ of restitution is considered the tenant’s “personal property” and thus can be moved “to the nearest public property” under RCW 59.18.312? Thanks for your input.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>