Seattlebubbleblog: Interesting Source for Puget Sound Real Estate Info

Posted on July 17, 2009 by Dan Dickson

One of my favorite websites I visit to keep a pulse on the Puget Sound residential real estate market is the Seattlebubbleblog. Its founder and editor is Seattle resident named Timothy Ellis who goes by the blog name “The Tim.” http://seattlebubble.com/blog/ 

The blog has daily posts which include some great graphs, charts and analysis of the Puget Sound real estate market.  What makes the posters on the Seattle Bubble Blog unique is their credibility.  They were one of a few vocal media sources in Washington State that consistently and loudly predicted the current real estate crash before it happened.  In addition to good posts and analysis by “The Tim,” the comment section provides a lively discussion about Puget Sound real estate issues.  *Be aware homeowner: many of the comments made are from bloggers who predict continued steep declines in the Puget Sound real estate - so the blog isn’t for the faint of heart. 

The effect of local and federal laws as they relate to the residential real estate market in the Puget Sound area are also frequently discussed by the blog posters and authors with links to news articles and additional resources.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The non-owner's impact to adverse possession's timing requirement

Posted on April 30, 2009 by Robert Dickson

For someone to adversely possess someone else's property, the law requires the possession to have lasted continuously for a minimum of 10 years (or 7 years under color of title -- usually meaning that the individual was paying taxes on the adversely possessed property).  That is logical when the property is readily identifiable between two neighboring property owners.  But does that apply when the property owner is not actually occupying the property?  Can a non-owner, like a relative, renter, or friend occupy the property and preserve the 10-year requirement?  

Wendy Koch, a fellow associate at Dickson Steinacker, provided the following authority regarding just that issue: 

"Defendants cite no authority in support of their contention that Plaintiff must personally testify in an adverse possession case, especially where he adversely possesses through his wife and children which inures to his benefit.    Instead, it is well settled law that an adverse possessor may possess through his tenant (O’Brien v. Schultz, 45 Wn.2d 769, 278 P.2d 322 (1954); Foote v. Kearney, 157 Wash. 681, 290 P. 226 (1930); Flint v. Long, 12 Wash. 342, 41 P. 49 (1895)), and may possess through his contract purchaser (McAuliff v. Parker, 10 Wash. 141, 38 P. 744 (1894)).  By analogy then, he may possess through his family members." 

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,