Seattle Real Estate Attorneys
Dickson Law Group is Seattle and Tacoma’s preeminent real estate, business, and probate law firm. With over 100 years of combined experience, we have established a strong reputation for providing superlative service in real estate law.
Our team of real estate attorneys is led by founding partner Thomas L. Dickson, who has helped clients prevail in real estate matters for over 100 years.
Our real estate attorneys represent a broad base of local clients in a wide range of real estate matters, including loan modification and short sale.
Seattle Real Estate Disputes
Dickson Law Group assists buyers and sellers of commercial and residential property in real estate disputes throughout the Seattle.
From developers to mortgage lenders to homeowner associations, our team of litigators is ready to serve your legal needs. Our real estate dispute and mediation experience include but is not limited to:
- Commercial Tenancy Matters – There is no single standard commercial lease. Disputes may arise from any number of issues, ranging from the amount of security deposit charged, to common maintenance responsibilities, to the right of habitability.
- Easements and Boundary Disputes – Property owners often believe they know where their property lines really are or believe that their access rights are secure. Only if you or the owner of a neighboring property performs a land survey can you be 100% sure about your property boundaries. Land surveys may result in easements or boundary disputes.
- Quiet Title Actions – Filed to establish ownership of real estate property, quiet title actions can be messy affairs. These disputes arise from properties that have changed ownership several times.
- Real Estate Commission Disputes – Real estate commission disputes may arise from an agent or broker’s inability to collect fees, due to lack of proper documentation or ambiguous terms during the sale
- Title Insurance Disputes – Title insurance protects against title search errors, undiscovered title defects, and losses that arise from disputes over property ownership once the property has been purchased. Most title problems arise through the rejection of the title by the buyer’s lender. When this happens, quick action is needed to find a mutually agreeable solution.
Meet our Real Estate Law Team
Our real estate practice group is well recognized as Seattle real estate law experts. If you need high quality, cost-effective service, and innovative legal solutions, count on Dickson Law Group.
At Dickson Law Group, our attorneys have experience in settling real estate disputes quickly and fairly, to the mutual benefit of both parties.
Additional Practice Areas
We also have the following practice areas in real estate law:
- Real Estate Litigation, Mediation, Arbitration
- Real Estate Contract Drafting and Review for Commercial Properties
- Eminent Domain
- Legal Disputes with Local Governments & Municipalities
- Disputes with Banking Institutions regarding a Property
- Purchase or Sale of Residential and Commercial Property (including contract review)
- Lien Claims
- Eviction Proceedings
- Foreclosure Defense and Proceedings
- Homeowner Association Disputes and Creation
- Neighbor Disputes
- Landlord/Tenant Problems
- Condo Conversions
- Lease Review and Drafting
- Real Estate Projects
- CC&R Disputes or CC&R Creation
- Easement Creation and Disputes
- Trustee Services for Property Owners
- Real Estate Brokerage Business Contract Issues
Seller Liability to Buyer in Real Estate Transactions
I. Seller liability in transfer of real property (Merger Doctrine)
In the majority of contractual relationships, there is one written document that comprises the entire agreement. Real estate transactions are different, as they typically involve an initial “purchase and sale agreement” which is followed by the eventual transfer to title (i.e. the deed). The purchase and sale agreement outlines how the parties intend to transfer title to the property. This agreement has a short lifespan, lasting only until the closing of the transaction and associated title transfer.
The merger doctrine developed over time developed to help parties understand how to treat the initial purchase and sale agreement obligations compared the eventual terms and obligations contained in the deed (typically a statutory warranty deed). The merger doctrine essentially provides that when the deed is executed, delivered, and accepted, it becomes the final expression of the parties’ contractual relationship and “subsumes all prior agreements.” Barber v. Peringer, 75 Wn. App. 248, 877 P.2d 223 (1994) (attorney’s fee provision was merged into deed); Failes v. Lichten, 109 Wn. App. 550, 37 P.3d 301 (2001) (discussing anti-merger clause).
There are exceptions to the merger doctrine, but they are rare. Specifically, an exception only exists, when there are “collateral contract requirements” not contained in, or performed by, the execution and delivery of the deed. Id. These requirements cannot be inconsistent with the deed, and essentially are “independent” of the obligation that the selling party has of conveying title. Id. In addition, the merger doctrine does not preempt potential collateral legal claims that would stand independently from the contractual relationship (such as fraud).
Conceptually, the merger doctrine paints the purchase and sale agreement as a temporary arrangement between the parties, designed to eventually lead to the creation and transfer of a deed from the seller to the buyer. (Like scaffolding erected around a structure, once the construction is complete, the scaffolding is removed, and the underlying structure is left standing on its own.)
II. Seller disclosure statements (RCW 64.06.020)
In Washington state, sellers issue specific disclosures about the condition of the property being sold. (These are often referred to as “Form 17” disclosures, which refers to the Northwest MLS forms which have become used universally throughout the state.) Often, even though the buyer satisfies all the necessary and relevant disclosures regarding the condition of the property (in his “seller’s disclosure” statement), the buyer later uncovers an issue. Especially when the issue is significantly costly to repair, the buyer will often assume that the purchase and sale agreement was breached, and demand that the seller contributes monetarily to the remediation or repair of what is damaged or broken. However, the seller in those instances is likely not legally responsible.
There are several reasons for this liability limitation, chief among them being the terms, conditions, and especially contingencies, of the purchase and sale agreement. As long as the seller did not knowingly mislead or conceal a material issue with the property, it is unlikely that he is going to be liable. The seller will likely be able to point to these terms of the purchase and sale agreement as a defense (not to mention the merger doctrine). Unless stated otherwise, a seller real property does not implicitly establish warranties regarding the condition of the property. Any such warranties must be unambiguously spelled out to the buyer. Specifically, for a seller to be held responsible for issues with real estate after its having been sold, there must be some other instrument outside, of the purchase and sale agreement to create that liability.
Furthermore, the statutes at present, provide a significant level of protection to the seller of real estate as it relates to “errors or omissions” in the disclosure statement. According to RCW 64.06.050, the seller is only found liable if there was actual knowledge of the problem, and the seller wasn’t entitled to rely on the “statements of professionals.” Also, the recourses are limited from a buyer’s perspective: first, the buyer only has “three business days” from the receipt of the statement to accept the property and complete the sale or rescind the contract, second, the seller’s disclosure explicitly provides that it is NOT part of the underlying agreement between the parties (and by extension cannot be a basis for a breach of contract claim), and third, the seller disclosure essentially only provides a buyer the “right of rescission.” See RCW 64.06.070.
Easements: Express vs Prescriptive
While in theory, holding title to real estate would preempt all other parties from using it without express permission. However, that is not entirely correct. An easement exists when a third-party has a non-possessory right to use your property. Easements or most frequently created through written agreements. However, often and easement is established for third parties such as utility companies, cable companies, and local municipalities. In short, while it is true that a property owner has title to his or her land, it is not without encumbrances.
There are four types of easements, two of which are extremely common (express and prescriptive easements), while the other two are rare (implied easements and easements by necessity). The most common easement, as stated above, is an express easement. Again, these are established through written agreements between parties. A common form of express easement is that of a shared driveway. The scenario is simple to conceptualize: imagine one home built behind another, with the only way to reach the property is through a shared driveway located entirely on the property in front. An express easement for ingress and egress, would provide a nonpossessory right for that property owner to traverse the portion of the driveway on his neighbor’s property in order to reach his home. Certainly, there are numerous other types of express easements, such as utility easements. However, even if the document is not generated to establish an easement, one can develop over time.
A prescriptive easement can form based entirely on the conduct of a trespassing party. Similar to adverse possession, if a party uses someone else’s property for over 10 years, and does so openly, without permission, and in a manner akin to the actual title holder, he may establish a permanent easement to continue that use. The initial entry of that individual onto another’s property would be classified as trespass. However, that seem use, overtime, may establish a permanent legal right. or example, suppose that for decades, your neighbor utilized a section of walking path that traversed a back portion of your property. Suppose that her use of the pathway was obvious and apparent, and you never issued approval or permission for her to do so. In fact, perhaps there is even a moment in time where you asked her not to, but she continued to do so anyway. Your neighbor may have established a permanent prescriptive easement to continue utilizing that pathway. Bear in mind that the creating of a prescriptive easement is wholly irrespective of the mindset of the recipient. It is irrelevant whether the trust passing party intended on establishing a permanent usage right, or whether she did so by accident. What matters to the law, is what the conduct actually was over the 10-year timeframe.
Loan modification is the systematic alteration of mortgage loan agreements between the lender and the borrower. Loan modifications can be extremely beneficial to a borrower because a loan modification may decrease the interest rate, reduce some of the principal, cut back late fees or other penalties, or even lengthen the term of the mortgage loan.
While the loan modification process is often confusing and time-intensive, it doesn’t have to be that way.
Dickson Law Group provides professional legal assistance to clients in the Seattle and Tacoma area in their individual loan modification matters and has worked extensively with lenders across the nation.
If you are a distressed homeowner, struggling to make your monthly mortgage payments and afraid to lose your property, learn more about our loan modification services.
One of the most painful economic hits an American family can experience is watching the value of their home fall so low that it is worth less than their original purchase price. In this difficult scenario, a family may have to enter the financially damaging process of foreclosure.
Fortunately, there is another option. From a lender’s perspective, it is better to recover a portion of a mortgage loan than to absorb a total loss. This is good news for the homeowners, who may avoid a foreclosure and its negative effects on their credit score. In lieu of a foreclosure, banks will often settle for a short sale. This allows both the lender and the homeowner to end up in a better position.
At Dickson Law Group, our attorneys have experience in negotiating short sale agreements that benefit both parties. Learn more about our short sale assistance services.
Call now for a free 15-minute phone consultation at:
(253) 572-1000 in Tacoma
(206) 621-1110 in Seattle
For more options, visit our Contact Us page.