 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
April 4, 2007
|
| |
Latent Landmine #2: Due On Transfer Clauses
(This article is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
This is the second installment in an on-going series of articles I’ll write about various latent legal matters that often go un-noticed in a real estate transaction. However, when they rear their ugly head (as they occasionally do), can cause plenty of pain and misery…caveat emptor…let the buyer beware…take care to avoid these “Latent Landmines”.
Here are 3 scenarios that crop up frequently (or similar variations like them do):
1. Funding a Trust. Grandma & Grandpa Baby-boomers are completing some simple estate planning. They’ve heard that having a living trust is a good thing to have as it will avoid probate, keep their estate plan private, and save their loved ones time, money and stress from having to administer their estate once they pass away. To save money they find an online company selling living trusts, and they buy one of these kits (in comes complete with instructions on how to setup, fund, and manage their living trust). Carefully reading the instructions, they properly execute the trust agreement, and then fund the trust by preparing the quitclaim deed included in the kit to transfer their home, which has a mortgage on it, into the trust (called “funding” the trust), and recording the trust summary with the county auditor. Several weeks pass by, and just when they think everything is done with their estate plan, they get a letter from the bank that holds their mortgage demanding immediate full payment of the balance due on their mortgage (over $100,000), or they will start foreclosure proceedings against them! The bank claims the Baby-boomers had a due on sale clause in their loan (it was one of the reasons their loan officer could get them lower rates), and since they transferred their home into their living trust, the due on sale clause was triggered generating the bank’s demand letter. Oh no, this is a catastrophe! The Baby-boomers don’t have the money to payoff their mortgage in one lump sum as the bank demands!
2. Transferring Real Estate into an LLC or Corporation. Larry, Curly & Moe want to get into real estate investing after seeing a late night infomercial that promised they could make millions. They buy the real estate investing kit, attend the seminar, and setup their LLC just like they were told by the “experts”. Then, again following the advice of the “experts”, they locate a home to buy, and get financing from a local mortgage broker (which again includes a due on transfer clause as part of the loan’s features necessary for the low rate). A couple days after they close on the purchase of the home, they convey their property into their LLC. A month later, while they’re looking for a second investment home to buy, and just when they think everything is going great, they get a letter similar to the Baby-boomers above demanding immediate payment in full of the mortgage. Again, the basis for the demand is that they transferred their interest in their home which triggered the due on transfer clause in their promissory note.
3. Property Settlement in a Divorce. After toughing it out for several years, Sam and Sandy finally decide to call it quits, and get divorced. Their Property Settlement Agreement says Sam will move out and get his own place, while Sandy keeps the home to raise their 3 kids. The year earlier, Sam and Sandy took advantage of the really low rates they could get and had refinanced their home; but their loan also included a due on transfer clause as part of the terms the lender wanted to grant them the low rate. About a month later after Sam signed and recorded the quitclaim deed transferring all his interest to Sandy, Sandy gets a letter from the bank demanding the balance due on the refinance loan be paid in full immediately, or they will start foreclosure proceedings. Again, the bank tells her that she and Sam signed the promissory note with a due on transfer clause, and that since Sam transferred his interest in the home, the bank can immediately call the balance due on the mortgage.
Each of these 3 scenarios high light how an unknown term in their loan can be innocently triggered with catastrophic consequences. Many loans being made today include due on transfer clauses. The problem with them is that often the people owning the property carrying mortgages on them with these terms don’t know about it; then they innocently transfer the property which triggers application of the term calling for the balance due on the mortgage to be paid immediately.
Ironically, although there are LOTS of mortgages with due on transfer clauses in them, the banks often aren’t exercising their right to demand the balance be paid in full…why? Most likely, the answer is that newer refinance loans can still be obtained by many people who could simply refinance their home, and possibly get a new loan without this term in it. However, if mortgage rates rise again so that new loans pay higher rates than current loans, banks may well begin to exercise their rights to call the balance due on many of these loans carrying due on transfer clauses (it would be a great way for banks to force borrowers into getting new higher rate mortgages, or risk losing their homes for violating the due on transfer clauses in the loans).
|
| |
April 2, 2007
|
| |
Dog Bites: Every Dog Has His Day
(This article is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
My workout routine includes running through my neighborhood for an hour. The route I normally run takes me past me past several homes with dogs who each have their own personalities: (1) Two small, feisty, hyperactive, bark-at-EVERYTHING-dogs; (2) One big, threatening-looking-but-mild-mannered dog; (3) Two aggressive rush-the-fence-barking-and-growling medium-sized dogs; and (4) One goofy and friendly master-escape-artist dog who can ALWAYS gets out of his back yard.
I’m an ex-farm boy from eastern Washington, and I love animals as much as anyone. However, I’m also an attorney, so what’s the law on dog liability in Washington?
Perhaps surprisingly, Washington has a zero-tolerance for dog bites and other damages caused by dogs. Washington’s Dog statute, RCW 16.08, covers these matters; but here’s a brief paraphrased summary of what they provide (read the actual statutes for more complete info):
First, RCW 16.08.040, establishes strict liability for any dog owner with a dog that damages anyone else if that person is located either in a public area, or lawfully on the property where injured by the dog, including the dog owner’s property…and it doesn’t matter whether or not the dog’s owner knew of the dog’s former viciousness (Note: RCW 16.08.100(3) also makes it a Class C Felony for any owner of a dog that aggressively attacks and severely injures or kills any human, even if the dog’s owner didn’t previously know the dog was “dangerous”) . However, proof of provocation is an absolute affirmative defense, RCW 16.06.060. RCW 16.08.050 says a person is lawfully on the property of another when they have the express or implied consent to be there; but consent to properly be the property won’t be presumed for anyone within a fenced or reasonably posted area of the property.
Second, a dog owner is liable for any death or damage the dog may cause to any other animal, including the costs of collection (i.e. attorney fees, court costs, etc.), RCW 16.08.010. Also, a dog caught chasing, injuring or killing another animal can be killed, RCW 16.08.020. Furthermore, if a dog owner has been notified his/her dog has been chasing, injuring, or killing other animals, the dog’s owner must confine the dog to his/her property or keep them on a leash (if the dog then gets out, it can be killed if found running at large), RCW 16.08.020. Finally, the owner or keeper of a dog caught killing any domestic animal must kill the dog within 48 hours after being notified of the killing, or they’re guilty of a misdemeanor, (and the sheriff is to kill any dog without a metal ID tag that is caught from Aug 1 through the following March 1), per RCW 16.08.030.
Third, the Washington statutes, RCW 16.08.080 to 100, layout a process for a county or city to give notice to a dog’s owner that they have “dangerous” dog. Very briefly, a city or county that wants to declare a dog as “dangerous” must notify the dog’s owner in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, giving the details & reasoning why they’re seeking the dog to be declared “dangerous”. Within 15 days after delivery of this notice, the city or county must allow the dog’s owner a chance to meet with the city or county, and give the dog’s owner a chance to explain why the dog shouldn’t be declared “dangerous”. A dog shouldn’t be declared “dangerous” if the person complaining of the dangerous dog was injured while trespassing onto the property of the dog’s owner, or was abusing or harassing the dog (or had been previously seed abusing or harassing the dog), per RCW 16.08.090(3). Within 15 days after any such meeting, the city of county shall issue its decision as to whether or not the dog is “dangerous” (the written decision stating the basis for the decision is sent to the dog’s owner by certified mail, return receipt requested). The statutes allow for an appeal process, if the dog’s owner doesn’t like the decision of the city or county.
If the dog is declared “dangerous”, there are several things then required; but at a minimum: (1) The dog’s owner must keep and maintain the certificate of registration on their “dangerous” dog; (2) The dog must be confined within an area conspicuously marked as having a “dangerous dog”; (3) If the dog is taken out of it’s confinement, it must be muzzled so it can’t bite, and restrained by a substantial chain or leash with a responsible person; (4) The dog’s owner must post at least a $250,000 surety bond payable to anyone injured by the “dangerous” dog, and must also carry at least a $250,000 minimum liability home owner’s policy also payable to anyone injured by the “dangerous” dog. If any of these 4 minimum items are violated, the “dangerous” dog may be immediately confiscated and confined by the animal control authority, and written notice sent to the dog’s owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the dog’s owner doesn’t correct the problem(s) within 20 days of this written notice, and pay all costs associated with confining the dog, the dog will be humanely killed, and the dog’s owner is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
In conclusion, although most dogs are wonderful fun pets, and don’t hurt people; all dogs must be responsibly raised so as not to be a threat to anyone or anything else. Washington’s laws relating to dog liability are clearly stacked against the dog and its owner. Thus, if you’re going to keep a dog, in addition to being realistic about your time and ability to routinely feed, water and play with the dog; also factor in these state laws as to whether or not you can responsibly raise a dog. Judging from the personalities and conduct of the dogs on my running route, I’m not sure all these dogs’ owners have considered these things.
|
| |
March 30, 2007
|
| |
Latent Landmine #1: Listing Agreement Commissions
(This article is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
This is the first installment in an on-going series of articles I’ll write about various latent legal matters that often go un-noticed in a real estate transaction. However, when they rear their ugly head (as they occasionally do), they can cause plenty of pain and misery…caveat emptor…let the buyer beware…take care to avoid these “Latent Landmines”.
Here’s a scenario that crops up relatively frequently:
Cute, innocent, Suzy Home Seller hires, Slick, a fast-talking real estate agent that impressed Suzy with a lot of fancy real estate terms and concepts, to sell her home. He gets Suzy to agree to a standard 3% commission using either standard NWMLS form 1A or 1B (either works for purposes of this article). Although Slick puts the home on the MLS, and puts his “for sale” sign in the front yard of Suzy’s home, he doesn’t do anything else…he’s got more important things to do, like prey on other customers, take a vacation, or “network” on the golf course. Unfortunately for Suzy, the only inquiry she gets about her home is from her neighbor, Ned, who saw Slick’s sign while checking his mailbox (it’s right next to Suzy’s). But Ned-the-neighbor has to get his financing taken care of to buy her home while Suzy waits. Ned is a good guy and tells Suzy he’ll get back with her when the financing is in order; but to go ahead and continue to sell the home…if she’s still got it when he gets his stuff in order, then they’ll deal; otherwise, he’ll find a different home to buy. In the meantime, Slick never gets Suzy a buyer. After several very frustrating weeks of putting up with dead-beat Slick, Suzy, who is nobody’s fool, finally fires him…good riddance!!
Within a couple weeks, however, Suzy then hires Savvy, another real estate agent, to sell her home. However, she’s been burned once by Slick; and now she’s fearful it will happen again. Realizing this, and wanting to land Suzy as a client, Savvy, cuts her a “sweetheart deal”: He convinces her to drop her price by $10,000, and also agrees he’ll only charge her a 1% sales commission (again, using either NWMLS form 1A or 1B as they both work for this sad story). Fortunately, Savvy, within about a month, actually lands a buyer for Suzy. Ironically, though, the buyer is good ole Ned…he came back just like he’d promised…and each live happily ever after…sigh.
But wait…at closing, Suzy is horrified to see on her HUD-1 Settlement Statement, not only the 1% commission to Savvy, which is what she was expecting, but Sweet Mother Mary and Joseph…a 2% commission being paid to Slick…ack!! Slick is getting paid twice what Savvy is for doing nothing to help Suzy…Slick didn’t even sell the home; but gets paid anyway…what’s up with that!!
A LOT of people believe when they fire someone, everything between them is terminated. Unfortunately, for many innocent people (and those who don’t closely read what they sign), like Suzy, this isn’t what the NWMLS listing agreements provide. Both NWMLS standard listing agreement forms 1A and 1B have the same 6 month trailing commission payment. Specifically, for up to 6 months after a real estate agent is terminated, if a buyer is found based on the signs or advertising efforts of that agent; then that terminated agent can demand their commission be paid (however, the total commission paid is reduced by any commission paid to any subsequent MLS member-agent, like Savvy in this case).
This is what snagged Suzy in my story. Ned learned of Suzy’s home being for sale from Slick’s sign, and he entered into the PSA to buy the home from Suzy within 6 mo’s after Suzy fired Slick. Dead-beat Slick had the contractual right to demand his commission from poor ole’ Suzy. Poor innocent Suzy didn’t read the listing agreement she signed with Slick (or Savvy for that matter), and it came back to haunt her.
In theory at least, the basis for this follows the logic that this provision is to protect agents from their customers who may otherwise fire them just before closing on a sale to a buyer the agent found, and thereby avoid paying a commission to the agent. Yes, this could happen. However, on the other hand, I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard a sad story similar to Suzy’s…I’d quit working for a living!
This 6 month trailing commission provision can be a real trap for the unwary. This term should be reviewed carefully…and perhaps removed completely...it traps a LOT of people. Virtually every person who has told me a sad story similar to Suzy’s didn’t read their listing agreement. Instead, they blindly signed the listing agreement with their agent without reading it. This is not good, obviously. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, I’ve never had anyone tell me their real estate agent pointed out this 6 month trailing commission term to them…which is also not good.
Thus, “caveat emptor”…let the buyer beware…READ WHAT YOU SIGN!! If you don’t understand a legal document or contract you’re reading, get an attorney to help you understand it. A little money paid to an attorney can save you a LOT of money, time and frustration later.
|
| |
March 27, 2007
|
| |
Dual Agency...It's Not In The Client's Best Interest
(This article is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
In spite of the inherent conflict of interest in representing both a buyer and seller in the same transaction, RCW 18.86.060 specifically allows a real estate agent to be a dual agent for both buyer and seller. The practical problem here becomes once a dual agency is undertaken by a real estate agent, who do they represent? In theory at least, the agent represents both seller and buyer (RCW 18.86.060 attempts to preserve this); but from my experience, in a dual agency the agent represents the “deal”, not the “parties”. The self-interest of the agent in securing the double commission triumphs over the interests of the parties. Keeping the “deal” alive becomes the mission. Too many times this is NOT good for the parties…and the attorneys have to clean up the mess.
To prove my point, here are 2 actual examples I was involved in…one from the seller’s perspective, and one from the buyer’s perspective:
1. Seller Damaged in Dual Agency. A sweet elderly lady came to me seeking legal representation to “foreclose” on the buyers of a small old home she and her deceased husband had sold several years ago to a “nice young couple with a family” who needed a home; but needed some “help” buying it. Preliminary investigation revealed she sold the home on a real estate contract, not on a note and deed of trust, so I got her straightened out that she would have to do a “forfeiture”, not a “foreclosure”, to take back the home. Digging deeper, this story went from bad to worse. This “young couple with a family” were the proverbial “buyers from hell”. The home was trashed, garbage was everywhere, and they were many months in arrears on their home payments to the seller. Repair estimates were at about $20,000. This elderly lady had unfortunately listened to the advice of her friend’s son, a real estate agent, and sold the home through him under a dual agency. The buyers this agent found for her couldn’t get a mortgage from a bank, so needed to buy using seller financing (the real estate contract) instead. The agent never told her the extreme risks she was assuming in selling to buyers who couldn’t get financing from banks at a time when rates were very low, and virtually everyone with a 98.6 average body temperature could get a mortgage…except these buyers, wouldn’t you know! She was totally shocked to hear that we’d have to do at least two separate legal transactions – the forfeiture action, and then a separate suit against the buyers for damaging the property – and then repair the home’s damage on top of that. If the buyer’s didn’t leave willingly, then after the forfeiture, we’d have to start a third legal action, an eviction action (unlawful detainer), to physically remove the old buyers from the property. In being completely truthful, I had to further warn this lady she’d likely end up with a worthless judgment against these buyers, because they appeared judgment proof (and may file bankruptcy later to avoid paying this debt to her). The real tragedy is this elderly lady couldn’t afford all this. Had her real estate agent properly advised her to avoid these buyers completely, and to perhaps simply wait for better buyers, this all would have been avoided. Ultimately, we got her property back, the bad buyers left; but she’s still saving her money to repair the property so she can re-sell it…to better buyers this time.
2. Buyers Damaged in Dual Agency. A young military couple with a family (not like the ones above…these were the innocent “buyers from heaven”) new to the Puget Sound area, had recently purchased their first home. However, their long awaited 1st home had significant home damage. Preliminary investigation showed a LOT of damage to the home, including several holes in the wall, and most significantly, a cracked foundation showing the house had partially settled. Further investigation showed this couple purchased this home under a dual agency from a “very professional” real estate agent (their words, not mine) that was referred to them by their friends. A review of the Seller’s Disclosure Statement (NWMLS Form 17) showed all questions therein were marked either “no” or “don’t know”, and there were no further explanations about the home’s condition attached. Repair estimates were coming in at about $60,000. Although these buyers bought the home subject to inspection, they had in fact actually “looked” at the home a week before it closed with both their agent and inspector present at the time. During this “look” at the home, these 1st time home buyers, and their inspector, had been told by their agent that not all of the home could be inspected because the sellers were in the process of boxing things up in preparation to be out of the home by the closing date. The buyers said when they “looked” at the home, everything was covered up by boxes or sheets that were hung over the walls in a couple places, and you couldn’t even walk through much of the house. Obviously, the inspector had his hand in this mess when he told the buyers the home was “OK”, and free of material defects. Nonetheless, and the point I’m raising her is, their agent grossly compounded the problem not only by completely misleading these very naïve buyers that this was a “good” house; but also by pressuring them into waiving their inspection contingency based solely on these buyers “looking” at the home in this manner. Unfortunately, this innocent military family put complete faith in their agent to their profound detriment. Ultimately, we got the case settled, but it came at a HUGE financial and personal cost to the buyers. Not only did we have to file a lawsuit on the matter; but this young family also went through a temporary separation from each other due to the internal stress this caused on their family (thankfully, however, they ultimately were able to patch things up between themselves).
Both these cases involved the dual agent giving in to the temptation to “fudge” a little in their representation of their clients…in both instances there were problems with one side of the deal or the other, and the agent either failed to adequately represent one party and/or manipulated the other party to get these deals closed, instead of legitimately representing their client’s best interests. Their lust for the double commission was greater than the fiduciary duty they owed their clients…they both saw a way to turn a quick dollar and took it.
Sellers and buyers are diametrically opposed to each other in a home sale, and a dual agent can’t practically represent both, particularly when the issues at hand involve the other party to the transaction…this is a clear conflict of interest (which, by the way, is prohibited by RCW’s 18.86.040/.050/.060). In my experience, when people need their agent most is when they run across problems in the sale process, just as in the cases above; but in a dual agency this is the time they’re least likely to get it…especially, again, when the problem involves the other party to the transaction.
In conclusion, although there are many good real estate agents, unless the transaction is between parties not really adverse to each other; and they’ve either legitimately trying to help each other out, or have all the details agreed to; such as parents selling a home to their children…avoid the dual agency as a matter of policy.
|
| |
March 23, 2007
|
| |
Washington's 3 Good Deeds
(This article is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
Every once in a while an unusually observant client notices that different deeds are used for different things, and wants to know what the differences are between them. I’ll save you the horribly tedious minutia I suffered through in law school all those years ago, and cut to the chase.
Washington has codified the three main types of deeds: Warranty Deed, Bargain and Sale Deed, and the Quitclaim Deed (note: it’s “quitclaim”, not “quick claim”, as I often hear it mispronounced & misspelled). The main differences between the types of deeds are the implied warranties the grantor makes to the grantee. Yes, you can modify these deeds – for instance, I use a modified quitclaim deed for gifts of real estate, and for my Deed In Lieu Of Foreclosure – but these are the main ones (the warranties are paraphrased to be more understandable…hopefully. Read the actual statute to get the full, express terms):
1. Statutory Warranty Deed, RCW 64.04.030 – The statute gives the requisite form, and also states these implied warranties run with the deed from the grantor to the grantee: (A) Warranty of good title in fee and power to convey title; (B) Warranty that title is free from encumbrances; and (C) Warranty of quiet and peaceful possession of property, and that grantor will defend grantee’s title against others lawfully claiming title to the property.
2. Bargain and Sale Deed, RCW 64.04.040 – Again, the statute gives the requisite form, and gives these implied warranties too: (A) Warranty of good title in fee free from encumbrances (but rents and services can be reserved); and (B) Warranty of quiet enjoyment (unless expressly limited in deed).
3. Quitclaim Deed, RCW 64.04.050 – Yet again, the statute gives the requisite form, and gives the implied warranty that grantor is conveying all the then existing legal and equitable title in fee; but not any after acquired title, unless such is expressly stated in the deed.
Statutory Warranty Deeds are used in the typical arm’s length purchase and sale transaction. Bargain and Sale Deeds, the most rare of the 3 main deeds, are still used to sell property whenever the grantor doesn’t know the history of property (and doesn’t want to defend grantee’s title against others claiming title to the property), such as a personal representative selling real estate from a decedent’s estate. Quitclaim deeds are used for a variety of miscellaneous things such as refinance transactions, to transfer real estate into or out of a corporation or LLC, or to fund a trust.
|
| |
March 22, 2007
|
| |
Lis Pendens...What's That?
(This post is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
A little while ago a client came to me saying they were having a little problem with something called a “lis pendens”. They had been in the process of selling their home themselves as a FSBO. They already had their purchase and sale agreement in place with the buyer, and the sale was subject to inspection (STI). A couple days before the time was due to complete the home inspection, the buyer’s agent called the sellers to get more time to complete the inspection. However, the sellers by then had a better back-up offer waiting, so refused to grant these 1st buyers their time extension. Hearing he wasn’t going to get the time extension he wanted (and no doubt pained by the thought of his commission vanishing before his eyes), the agent decided to play his “trump card”…he threatened to cloud the seller’s title to their property with a “lis pendens” so the sellers couldn’t sell their home to their backup buyer. The sellers didn’t know what a “lis pendens” was, nor whether the threat from the buyer’s agent was serious or not.
“Lis Pendens” (Latin, “litigation pending”) has been codified in WA under RCW 4.28.320. Very briefly, it’s a document recorded on real estate to give constructive notice that there is a lawsuit pending affecting title to that respective property. Anyone taking title to this property after this lis pendens is recorded takes their title in this real estate subject to the outcome of the litigation. Effectively, then, the recording of the lis pendens stops any further sale/transfer of the property until the underlying lawsuit is resolved, and the lis pendens released. Implicit within this is a 2-step process: (1) File the lawsuit in Superior Court; then (2) Record the lis pendens on the subject property. RCW 4.28.320 goes on to say that you must serve the summons as to the underlying lawsuit on the defendant within 60 days of recording the lis pendens, or the notice shall be of no avail.
Ultimately, we got the nonsense about recording a lis pendens headed off at the pass, and the sale concluded. Although this example triggers another very important issue…real estate agents engaging in the unauthorized practice of law…I’ll save that for another article.
|
| |
March 21, 2007
|
| |
Trespassing Tree
(This post is NOT legal advice. Consult an attorney for any specific legal issues you may have.)
Here’s a common scenario we’ve all seen in one form or another:
Able, lives on Parcel A in her quaint, humble “gingerbread house” complete with fenced back yard, ivy creeping up the brick fireplace, and of course, a proper “English garden” snuggled into a corner of her back yard…right next to her reading nook, stone bird bath, and humming bird feeders. Able loves nothing more than reading magazines and sipping tea at her reading nook on summer evenings. Baker, an absentee real estate investor, owns Parcel B, which is a vacant lot abutting Parcel A on Parcel A’s back boundary. Baker has several trees on Parcel B, including a large maple tree right next to Able’s fence, and which also overhangs Able’s reading nook.
Able used to like this maple tree because when it was younger it gave her shade from the very rare Puget Sound sunlight. However, this maple tree isn’t so nice any more…its many branches are so large now they entirely block virtually all sunlight over the entire reading nook and English garden (the garden isn’t growing well either from lack of sunshine), its roots have pushed up her fence and knocked it out of alignment, and those blasted twirly seeds sprout sucker trees all over the back yard…ugh! What can Able do?
At the risk of sounding like a “typical lawyer”…there is no easy answer here.
Can she take care of this herself?
Yes, if Baker will cooperate, this would certainly be the best alternative. Give him a call to resolve it; or failing that, write him a letter on the matter…be sure to include any threats the tree may pose to any people or property on Able’s property.
If Baker doesn’t cooperate, can she take matters into her own hands, and simply cut back the offending branches, and roots?
Possibly, but this is risky. RCW 64.12.030 specifically allows for Baker to collect treble (triple) damages if she cuts the tree beyond her boundary, or otherwise injures or kills the tree. This could be a very expensive option depending on how much she cuts, and what happens to the tree.
If Baker doesn’t cooperate, does she just have to live with it?
No. This maple tree constitutes a nuisance both at common law and under RCW 7.48.120, because the tree interferes with her quiet use and enjoyment of her property. She can hire an attorney who may also write a letter to Baker attempting to resolve the matter. Failing that, RCW 7.48.020 specifically allows her to file suit against Baker seeking both a warrant for abatement from the sheriff and an injunction to prevent continuance of this nuisance. So Able has options on this matter.
In conclusion, Able should consider starting by being the “good neighbor”, and attempt to resolve this with Baker herself. However, if that doesn’t work, she’s most likely going to need to hire an attorney to help her resolve this matter with Baker.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigation
