by Justin Tollefsen | Apr 5, 2016 | Administrative US, Administrative WA, Attorneys, Blog, Business Law, Corporate Law DL, Entrepreneurship, Regulatory Compliance, SEC, Securities Law WA, Securities US, Tollefsen Law
At some point, nearly every regulatory client has asked me, in a tone of incredulity, why “such a little thing” mattered to a regulating agency. Often the client also asks why a government regulator focuses on the “little guy” when big business appears to skate through regulatory compliance with no issues. The second answer is far simpler but answering it first leads us to part of the answer for the first question. How Big Businesses Treat Regulatory Compliance Big businesses appear to skate through regulatory matters without issues, in a sense, because they are big. Being big, they hire regulatory compliance experts to eliminate issues and quickly correct any problems that do come up. They have support personnel to do the actual work. The proactively address most problems before they get to the point of administrative sanctions or lawsuits. This is not to say big businesses don’t have regulatory problems: many do. Some businesses simply don’t bother to comply and have problems as a result. But most big businesses place an emphasis on regulatory compliance. They recognize that compliance failure can be a business-ending proposition. They place a priority on regulatory compliance. Simply making regulatory errors can put a company under heightened scrutiny, causing more frequent examinations and other disruptive and costly consequences. A series of errors, or repeated errors, may also raise questions that lead to more serious investigations or prosecutions. Each situation drags at a company’s bottom line and pulls focus from the company’s mission and vision. As a result, most big businesses solve their regulatory issues quickly. They hire staff to address compliance. They include it...
by Justin Tollefsen | Jun 9, 2015 | Attorneys, Blog, Business Law, Real Estate WA, Tollefsen Law, Washingon State
Merry v Nationstar –Wn App 324745-III Background to Deed of Trust In 2007, Sharon Weirich borrowed $205,440 from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and executed a Deed of Trust on her real property as security. The deed identified Countrywide as the lender, Landsafe Title of Washington as the Trustee, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as “a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” In Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, 175 Wn.2d 83, 93, 285 P.3d 34 (2012), the Supreme Court of Washington held that the MERS registry’s business practices in creating and transferring beneficial interests with regard to mortgages conflict with the requirements of Washington’s Deed of Trust Act. Beginning in 2011 MERS made a number of assignments and changes in ownership of the note, beneficiary, and trustee using the business practices found to conflict with the Deed of Trust Act. Following these changes, in October 2012, Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. served Mrs. Weirich with a notice of default on behalf of Bank of America. The same month Ms. Weirich executed a deed of trust to Thomas Merry. This deed of trust secured payment of a $68,000 promissory note. Ms. Weirich also executed a power of attorney and an assignment of legal claims to Mr. Merry. In December 2012, Ms. Weirich received a notice of trustee’s sale informing her that her property would be sold on April 19, 2013 to satisfy her promissory note she originally gave to Countrywide. However, property was not sold on April 19, 2013 and no sale was rescheduled within the 120-day window...
by Justin Tollefsen | May 29, 2015 | Attorneys, Blog, Civil Litigation WA, Constitution WA
On May 28, 2015, in Davis v Cox, the Washington State Supreme Court invalidated the Washington Anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.525. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that section (4)(b) of statute unconstitutionally violates the right to a jury trial. The Court further held that, because every other section in RCW 4.24.525 is dependent upon section (4)(b), the provision is nonseverable and the statute is invalid as a whole. The Washington Anti-SLAPP statute was adopted to address and dissuade “lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances”. A defendant may file a special motion to strike any “action involving public participation and petition”. If the action is found to involve “public participation and petition”, the responding party must “establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim”. If the moving party prevails, the statute contains a provision for a mandatory $10,000 civil penalty and attorney fees for instituting a lawsuit in violation of the statute. The focus of the Court’s decision was the standard of proof placed upon the party responding to a special motion to strike. The responding party must “establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim”. The Court held that the statutory language requires a trial judge to make factual findings and adjudicate the claim. Article I, Section 21 of the Washington State Constitution states, “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate”. The Court noted that, “At its core, the right of trial by jury guarantees litigants the right to...
by Justin Tollefsen | Mar 4, 2015 | Attorneys, Blog, Civil Litigation, Real Estate WA, Trusts and Estates WA, Washingon State
What do you do when a seller fails to reconvey the title to property following payment of the loan, then dies? Failure to reconvey puts a cloud on the title that must be quieted. However, a quiet title action can be a drawn out and expensive matter. Is there a way to obtain a quiet title without a quiet title action? Failure to Reconvey Recently, a client called in a panic on a Friday afternoon. She was selling her home and it was closing day of her sale. The former owner had failed to reconvey the property and then died. The old title company’s solution to the failure to reconvey fell through. The new title company had just informed my client that they would not issue a title insurance policy without a hold-back of hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also said that she needed a quiet title, that this would require a quiet title action, which would take six to nine months, and the costs would be her responsibility. However, the sale could not close without the title insurance policy. My client obtained an extension of the closing date, granted the buyers a rental agreement at no cost to them while she worked to enable the sale to close. However, she was frustrated, angry, and afraid she was about to have no house, no money, months of litigation she could ill afford, and all the liability of having renters with no money for the rent. My client had purchased the home with seller financing nineteen years earlier on a five year Note backed by a Deed of Trust....
by Justin Tollefsen | Nov 24, 2014 | Attorneys, Blog, Team Members, Tollefsen Law, Trusts and Estates WA, Washingon State
When Should You Prepare Your Estate Plan? The basic rule is that it is never to early to begin an estate plan and certain events, such as marriage, the birth of a child, divorce, or death may require a plan to be updated. Estate planning, however, is something that many people want to avoid thinking about. In fact, many people put it off until something startles them into action. That something might be a birthday, the birth of a child, the realization of the size of an estate, a stroke, a serious illness or injury, or even the first inklings that a spouse or loved one is in the early stages of dementia. In some cases, there may be urgency to make plans while the person has the capacity to make choices and convey his or her wishes. Estate planning in these cases is likely to include much more than a simple will. The person may also need to make significant financial and medical plans to prepare for future medical and mental health needs. Individuals who are experiencing the effects from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, or the onset of dementia, and those who believe they are at a higher risk for brain injury or dementia may want to include the preparation of a Mental Health Advance Directive in their estate planning process. Mental Health Advance Directives can provide dignity for the person and comfort for the person’s family who knows how to respond to a difficult situation. What is a Mental Health Advance Directive? In 2003, Washington enacted its Mental Health Advance Directive law. A Mental Health Advance Directive is...
by Justin Tollefsen | Nov 14, 2014 | Administrative WA, Attorneys, Blog, Constitution WA, Employment Law WA, Tollefsen Law, Washingon State
Decision: 141103 – City of Medina v Skinner 711571 On November 3, the Court of Appeals, Division I held that the Civil Service Commission’s Back Pay Award Exceeded Its Authority when it awarded back pay and benefits after it had modifed Officer Skinner’s discipline. Lieutenant Roger Skinner was terminated from his position with the City of Medina Police Department for a violation of department standards. Skinner appealed his dismissal to the City’s Civil Service Commission. The Commission found that the City acted in good faith and with just cause when it disciplined Skinner. It also found that the City did not have cause to terminate Skinner. The Commission ordered the City to set aside Skinner’s discharge. Instead of discharge, the Commission ordered Skinner to be suspended without pay and benefits for sixty days. It also ordered Skinner to be demoted to patrol officer effective the last day of his suspension and ordered the City to pay Skinner back pay and benefits as a patrol officer from the end of the suspension until his health precluded his return to work. The Commission retained jurisdiction over the matter until resolution of what it called the “remedy phase.” It said that it would set a hearing as to implementation of its order if the parties could not resolve it through stipulation. The City moved for partial reconsideration, challenging the Commission’s award of back pay and benefits. The Commission denied the motion stating that issues regarding the offset of Skinner’s wages or earnings after his suspension would be addressed during the remedy phase. The City applied for a statutory writ of review under Chapter 7.16 RCW, arguing...
