From:                              Dustin Frederick [dustin@local519.org]

Sent:                               Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:11 PM

To:                                   William L. Cameron

Subject:                          FW: Fwd: FW: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments

Attachments:                 Exempt lot data.xls

 

Bill---see below---fyi.

 

Dustin

 

From: Carol Del [mailto:caroldchina5@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 4:03 PM
To: Dustin Frederick; Carol
Cc: Gwyn Staton; Rick Karjalainen; Susie Petterson
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments

 

Attached is the list of people sent the exempt lot letter.  They left today.  I put the bill for each of the lots at $62 and the two residences at $124.  I'm prepared - I think - for the complaints.  Sent Bill Cameron's letter out just as it was.  Still not perfect but it seemed important to get the job done.  

 

Dustin, could you send Bill a note that it is finished.  I need to finish some other things asap.

Carol D


From: Dustin Frederick <dustin@local519.org>
To: Carol Del <caroldchina5@yahoo.com>; Carol <carolzpix@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, May 27, 2011 8:04:15 AM
Subject: RE: Fwd: FW: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments

Carol and Carol ----thank you so much for working through this.  Please send them out asap with the VP signature.  I have talked with the Newshams several times---they have some options---they know the billing is coming so just send it out based on their current number of lots.   I think they are going to combine lots.

 

Dustin

 

From: Carol Del [mailto:caroldchina5@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:17 PM
To: Carol; Dustin Frederick
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments

 

Double checked the exempt lot list today with Carol P after verifying ownership and addresses with Assessors list.  One person has subsequently paid and therefore is off the list.  So of the original list of 16, now 15, three lots are owned by the Bray estate and two are the Newsham's. So the mailing list is actually only eleven letters going out. 

 

I made up a letterhead document using the revised letter from Cameron and will sign as VP unless you think it should come form either of you.  Gwyn was just anxious that it go out asap. Yesterday.

 

Dustin - I need to know what, if anything, needs to be changed to address the issue the Newshams have.  They currently have two exempt lots listed (they pay for the lot their home is on).  

 

Carol - I show only one lot with a house on it - Cathie Harrison -  could you please advise me on the correct amount to charge.  [Each letter is addressed individually so I just need to put in the 2011 dues.] I'd hate to make an error at this point.  

 

Thanks

Carol D

 

 

 


From: Carol <carolzpix@gmail.com>
To: Carol Del <caroldchina5@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 3:58:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dustin Frederick <dustin@local519.org>
Date: Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Subject: FW: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments
To: Carol <carolzpix@gmail.com>

Hi Carol---please use the attached version of the exempt letter in lieu f the one I sent you yesterday---for the reasons outlined below.

 

Questions---call me.

 

Dustin

 

From: William L. Cameron [mailto:Wlc@leesmart.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:13 AM
To: Dustin Frederick; gwyn@businesslawconsultants.com
Subject: Exempt lots letter - Redlined & Comments
Importance: High

 

Dustin & Gwyn:

 

The letter you proposed to send out could cause us some huge problems and I recommend some changes. 

 

Roger has taken the definition of HOA and pointed out to the court that ACHOA has lots that do not pay dues and that takes ACHOA out of the statutory definition of HOA.  That is RCW 64.38 does not control your activities.  This is a perfectly sound argument, except Roger included too much information with his declaration and included part of the minutes of the first meeting which shows not that the lots are “exempt” but that they were not members of the Beach Club.  I used that position – that these lots are not part of the club as a defense to their cross-motion for summary judgment.  Our position in our reply is that the fifteen lots are indeed part of ACHOA and we are going to collect dues from them because the exemption only applied to the property owners at the time, or they are not part of ACHOA at all. 

 

Now mind you there is a third option here that is very unpleasant.  It is possible, albeit not with the evidence at hand, that the fifteen lots have a servitude of some sort that authorizes them to be members and not pay dues.  That is, these lots have a right to insist that the balance of the lots maintain and keep the facilities up, because they bought with constructive knowledge that the fifteen were members, but exempt.  So when the pool is closed because of disrepair, they may repair it and open it at the expense of the other property owners.  Your worst nightmare.  I don’t think that will happen, but stupider stuff has happened when it comes to covenants.

 

Now for the letter.  I have rewritten it to remove stuff about the court deciding anything, because as to them the court has decided nothing.  Legal advice and what your attorney told you should never be publicly announced as it probably waives the attorney-client privilege.  I have softened the “exempt” and emphasized the “not members” part.  I am not sure how that would work, frankly, but you need to know if these lots are in or out, not whether they are or are not exempt.  If characterized in the latter fashion, we get hammered in court.

 

Bill

 

 

William L. Cameron  |  Attorney at Law  |  VCard  |  Email  |  Bio 

 

Lee Smart, P.S., Inc.  |  1800 One Convention Place  |  701 Pike St.  |  Seattle, WA  98101  |  www.leesmart.com

Telephone 206.624.7990   Toll-free 1.877.624.7990  |  Fax 206.624.5944  |  Direct Line 206.262.8301  |  Cell 253.219.2435

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection.  If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.  Thank you.