Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Big Victory for Craig Blackmon!

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

Our own Craig Blackmon recently got the good news from the Court of Appeals: the Court affirmed a prior judgment entered in Craig’s client’s favor following a jury trial in the summer of 2010. Not only is this fantastic news for the client and the law firm, but it’s a reported decision meaning that it becomes the law of the State of Washington. And that’s good news for consumers too.

The substantive issue addressed by the Court concerned the enforceability of a release contained within the standard NWMLS Form 51 Rescission. Per that release, anyone who signs this standard form, a necessary and prudent step before entering into another contract for the purchase and sale of specific property, releases their agent from all liability associated with the transaction. Thus, and as was the case in Craig’s case, even though the deal cratered because of the negligence of the listing agent, the client ostensibly released the agent from resulting liability by signing the rescission. That simply is not fair to the client.

And now the State of Washington agrees. So future clients, who are harmed by the negligence of their agents, should also be successful in challenging this release and still holding their agents liable for losses caused. Great work, Craig, on behalf of the client and on behalf of all consumers of real estate broker services!

For more information about the case, see Craig’s recent post on Rain City Guide.

Craig Scores Big Trial Victory!

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

Our very own Craig Blackmon recently took a case to trial and won — congratulations, Craig!  Great job!!

The case involved a boundary dispute between adjoining neighbors.  The two properties were originally owned by a Mom and her Son.  Mom and Son were not concerned about the boundary between their properties.  As a result, Son built a large shed mostly on Mom’s property; Son also built a fence that encroached some 40 feet onto Mom’s property.  Mom wasn’t concerned about these structures because she trusted Son to do what was right and he had her permission to use her property as he deemed necessary.

Craig’s clients (Mr. and Mrs. Client) purchased their property from Mom.  Much to Clients’ surprise, Mr. Client had been childhood best friends with Son!  It was a truly remarkable coincidence.  It had been about 15 years since Mr. Client and Son had seen each other, and they were thrilled to be neighbors again.  Because of their relationship, Mr. Client and Son agreed to continue with the arrangment between Son and Mom.  As a result, Son and Client used the properties on both sides of the fence with the true owner’s permission.

Son then sold to a — hmm, how to put this — “difficult” man who proved to be an exceptionally bad neighbor (Mr. Bad Neighbor).  The relationship between Mr. Bad Neighbor and the Clients soon deteriorated.  Eventually, Mr. Bad Neighbor claimed ownership of the shed and all of Clients’ property up to the encroaching fence.  But unfortunately for Mr. Bad Neighbor, he owned the property for only 9 years and 11 months before the Clients filed suit (one must use another’s property for 10 years in Washington in order to take title via adverse possession).

The case involved some tricky hearsay issues (the agreement between Son and Mother, and between Son and Mr. Client) because Son was not to be found and was not a witness.  But Craig handled it with skill and aplomb (at least that’s how he told it!).  It was a bench trial (judge only, no jury) and the judge concluded that Craig’s clients were the true legal owners of the area in dispute.  Great work, Craig!!  Another victory for Blackmon Holmes.

The Foreclosure Mess: New Evidence Suggests We Have Problem in Washington

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

The “robo-signer” foreclosure scandal has been around for some time.  To date, however, most of the evidence of improper and illegal conduct by banks in foreclosing on homes has come from Florida, New York, and other states that require “judicial foreclosures.”  In a judicial foreclosure, the lender files a lawsuit against the debtor/homeowner to obtain court authority to sell the property as a means of collecting on the debt.

Here in Washington, the vast majority of foreclosures are non-judicial.  A non-judicial foreclosure happens outside of the court system and thus without judicial oversight.  How does the process work?  When the buyer of a home borrows money for the purchase, the buyer signs two important documents: a promissory note, and a deed of trust.  The note is the legal document that establishes the debt owed.  The deed of trust is the legal document that pledges the home being purchased to secure the debt if the borrower defaults.  When the borrower defaults, the lender (the “beneficiary” under the deed of trust) notifies the trustee (the person identified in the deed of trust with the authority to sell the property upon default).  After complying with various legal requirements primarily dealing with notice to the debtor/owner, the trustee can sell the property at public auction. 

If the borrower believes that the foreclosure is inappropriate, the borrower must file a lawsuit against the lender to stop the foreclosure.  Absent such a lawsuit, the entire non-judicial foreclosure process happens outside of court.  Since very few borrowers file such a lawsuit, most non-judicial foreclosures come and go without anyone really examining whether the process was completed appropriately.

But now somebody has opened the lid of this non-judicial “black box” and peered inside — and boy is it ugly in there.  Really ugly.  The San Francisco (City and County) recorder’s office audited about 400 files of non-judicial foreclosures, about 16% of the non-judicial foreclosures over a nearly three year period (January of ’09 through November of ’11).   Of these files, 99% of them at least suggested some legal violation or suspicious documentation; 84% had at least one clear legal violation; and fully two-thirds had four or more clear legal violations or irregularities. 

But that’s California, right?  It’s different here in Washington, right? Sadly, while that may be true as to our weather and our easy-going attitude, its not true in this context.  The actual report of the audit makes for fascinating reading, beginning with its description of the non-judicial foreclosure process in California.  It turns out that the process there is basically identical to the process here.  And the mortgage market is a national one.  So whatever shenanigans were going on in the Golden State were likely going on here as well.  So its safe to assume that an audit of non-judicial foreclosures in King County would reveal a similar number and percentage of non-judicial foreclosures that did not comply with the law.  And that simply is not good.

In a future post I’ll examine the implications for buyers of REO (i.e., bank-owned) homes, since all of these homes were previously foreclosed upon by the bank.

Maybe the 2011 housing market won’t be as stable as we thought

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

There is an interesting article in today’s Seattle Times noting that prices nationally continue to trend downward, including data suggestive of a “double dip” in prices. Here in Seattle, prices fell 1.1% between October and November of 2010, and 4.7% year over year.

What does this mean for us? Essentially, bad news, as the “worst case scenario” may be on the horizon: Prices stabilized somewhat in 2010 because of the artificial price support generated by the homebuying tax credit; with that credit gone (it expired June 30) the market has returned to its “normal” trajectory following the bubble, and the bottom is still some ways out into the future.

If that’s the case, what are the practical implications for buyers? Clearly its a bad time to buy for an investment, unless you are guaranteed a positive cash flow, which would offset the presumed short-term depreciation of the asset. On the other hand, if you’re buying a residence, then the possibility of “catching a falling knife” (in Wall Street-speak) must be balanced against historically low interest rates, tax benefits, the need to live somewhere, etc. In other words, even under the worst case scenario, it still makes some sense to buy a residence now, particularly if you anticipate living there for some time (which should allow for some recovery of equity, since the house may depreciate further right after you buy it).

The Foreclosure Mess Explained, Part 3

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

This post originally appeared on Rain City Guide.

For Part 3 in my series I will talk about the local (i.e. Washington State) implications for the national foreclosure mess. Before I do so, though, and as a last word on the “big picture” I recommend reading this NYTimes piece that appeared in the Sunday Week in Review.

Now, onto our own Washington. This state is primarily a “non-judicial foreclosure” state. Virtually every residential buyer purchases a property by signing a promissory note (the document that creates the debt to the bank) and a deed of trust (the document that pledges the house to secure the debt). When the borrower defaults, a lender has the option of foreclosing non-judicially (where the trustee under the deed of trust exercises his legal authority to sell the property in order to satisfy the debt) or foreclosing judicially (lender files a lawsuit and forecloses the deed of trust in a civil action).

Both methods lead to the sale at auction where the proceeds are applied to the debt. However, there are important differences: (1) in a non-judicial foreclosure, the debt being foreclosed is extinguished even if it remains unpaid after the auction; (2) in a judicial foreclosure, once the property is sold a judgment is entered against the borrower for the difference (i.e. the borrower remains liable for the full amount borrowed); and (3) the auction following a judicial foreclosure is less likely to get the “true market value” of the property when sold (because the borrower has a right of redemption following a judicial foreclosure). Also, a nonjudicial foreclosure is quicker and cheaper for the bank.

Given these realities, the vast majority of foreclosures in this state are non-judicial. A borrower always has the option of suing to stop a non-judicial foreclosure if the lender in reality does not have the right to foreclose. Thus, unlike those states where judicial foreclosure is prevalent, here in WA borrowers have the ability to stop a foreclosure if some “Robo-signer” made an egregious error and the bank is attempting to foreclose on the wrong house. In contrast, borrowers in judicial foreclosure states have no such option — they are already in court! They’re getting screwed WITHIN the civil justice system, so obviously the civil justice system cannot act as a brake on the process. Accordingly, since our borrowers have the right to escalate and seek the protection of the courts, the significance of lying “robo-signers” is greatly reduced in this state. That said, non-judicial foreclosure still requires statements made under penalty of perjury, so “robo-signers” are not completely off the hook.

Second, the vast majority of foreclosure auctions lead to repossession of the property by the bank. The bank then resells the property by listing it on the MLS (this is an “REO”, for “Real Estate Owned”, property). At the resale, the buyer almost always obtains a policy of title insurance, which then protects the purchaser from any claim to the property as a result of some irregularity in the foreclosure process. A local title expert believes that, as a result, there will be little impact on the local market.

Finally, the bad news: lenders did suspend their foreclosures here in WA (although, sadly, I am unaware of the current state of affairs in this regard), and investigations are continuing. Any delay in foreclosures just delays the inevitable downward pressure on prices until the excess inventory is absorbed by the market. So while we managed to avoid the worst of the “foreclosure mess,” we will still feel its effects.

Hanks v Grace — Victory for Blackmon Holmes!!

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Craig Blackmon was the attorney for Sharon Hanks in the lawsuit of Hanks v. Grace and RE/MAX, King Co. Cause No. 08-2-32349-8. Craig recently tried the case to a jury — and won! The jury awarded Mrs. Hanks $195.5k in out-of-pocket economic damages caused by the negligence of her listing broker, James Grace and RE/MAX Eastside Brokers. In addition, the jury concluded that Mr. Grace knew of Mrs. Hanks’s precarious emotional state at the time and should have protected her from emotional distress. Because he failed to do so, the jury awarded an additional $170.5k in non-economic (emotional distress) damages, for a total verdict in favor of the plaintiff of $366,000. Great work, Craig!!

WaLaw Recognized as an Innovator

Friday, June 25th, 2010

We’re excited to announce that our affiliated real estate brokerage WaLaw Realty been nominated for the prestigious 2010 Innovator Awards awarded by Inman News at the annual Real Estate Connect conference in San Francisco. Along with several impressive companies we’ve been nominated in the Most Innovative Real Estate Brokerage category. Since WaLaw and the firm work in tandem, the firm is just as entitled to the accolades!

Nominations are open to the public and winners are chosen by the Inman News editorial board. This year, for the first time, there is a “People’s Choice” Innovator Award as well so we need your vote so we can win twice!

Click here to register (choose the “limited access” option to register for free) then click here to vote.

Inman News prides itself as “the leading source of independent real estate news, information, advice, research, opinion and commentary for industry professionals and consumers alike” and they’ve been handing out the Innovator Awards annually since 1997. The awards go to forward-thinking individuals and businesses and past winners include Google Earth, Trulia, Redfin, New York Times Real Estate, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, RE/MAX International, E*Trade, E-Loan, Lending Tree.

It’s a big honor for us to be nominated and especially cool since it comes on the heels of an awesome article they about us last April. You have to be a dues-paying member to read the whole article so we’ll sum it up for you. The reporter looked all across the company to see if anybody else had a business model that combined the traditional strengths of a top notch real estate brokerage with the practical advice and counsel of a real estate law firm all for a low flat fee. Sure enough, we’re the first and only ones to do it and that, my friends, is the definition of innovation!

This nomination is right in line with our mission statement which makes it all the more satisfying. WaLaw Realty – Changing the way people buy and sell real estate!

We’ve Moved!

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Yup, we now have our very own office suite, which will allow us to hire agents/paralegals who will assist us in providing comprehensive legal counsel along with the services of a real estate agent.   Exciting times here at the firm!

New Firm Name is Official!

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

We finally got around to adding Marc’s name to the door.  Congrats, Marc!  Who knew his legal career would rise so rapidly?  Well, truthfully, anyone who knows him.

As you can also see, we’ve updated the content of the web site significantly.  Have a look around for some helpful links and learn about our practice.  We’d love to hear from you!