<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/21/2021 6:26 PM, Kathleen Hopkins
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MW4PR17MB43860ABCA7463A59F69A5F7D9CA29@MW4PR17MB4386.namprd17.prod.outlook.com">
<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-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:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Narrow";
panose-1:2 11 6 6 2 2 2 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"Open Sans";}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}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">Wow I would like to see the legislative
authority for that, given the increased number or robocalls I
have received lately!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For privacy do we need to advise clients to
get burner phones?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Kathleen J. Hopkins </i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I've never had this come up post-law school, and all I remember
from my hyper-caffeinated state is Professor Fletcher saying
something to the effect that the recorder would record a
[notarized?] lunch menu if you paid the fee. That seems
consistent with both RCW 65.04.030 ("recording officer must . . .
record") and 64.04.130 ("county auditor is not bound to record . .
. until his or her fess . . . are if demanded paid. . . ..").</p>
<p>But then there's RCW 82.45.090 which basically says no document
"may be accepted by the county auditor for filing or recording
until the tax is paid . ..." This is even though the tax becomes
a lien on property pursuant to RCW 82.45.070, "from the time of
sale" which presumably would put it prior to any new mortgage debt
but not prior encumbrances.</p>
<p>I'm assuming the ability to hold up a recording of a properly
formatted deed accompanied by a facially valid REET affidavit is
contained somewhere in RCW 82.32.010, et. seq., which is
applicable to recording via RCW 82.45.150. Looking through that
and related WACs is beyond the scope of my interest at the current
time.</p>
<p>But then there's the issue of why? I guess with the unpaid tax
lien not being prior to existing liens the government does have a
significant interest in holding up the transaction. Otherwise the
process seems to be mainly for the interest of the transferee and
their secured lenders. And having a phone number would speed up
resolving any issues, allowing an earlier recording.<br>
</p>
<p>Seemingly though the supplying the number of an attorney should
be sufficient if indicated as such. That would allow the issue to
be resolved, more likely faster than if they called a party to the
deed.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148</pre>
</body>
</html>