@Mike M. Thanks, can you point me to the text that says it's illegal in Washington to solicit anybody who is in foreclosure, who is in pre-foreclosure or thinks they may be in foreclosure in the future? I don't find that in 61.34. I do find at 61.34.020(3) that it defines a person as a "distressed home consultant".
Jametsky vs Olsen modified 61.34 to clarify the meaning of "at risk of loss due to nonpayment of taxes". 61.34 doesn't define it, though it defines almost everything else but the kitchen sink. The buyer wanted it to mean that a certificate of tax delinquency had been served by the county (which had not happened yet in that case though he was $10,000 behind). The homeowner wanted it to have it's dictionary meaning.
The attorney general agreed with the homeowner, and their opinion officially had "great weight" in the case because they are charged with enforcing 61.34.
The supreme court also agreed with the homeowner, setting the precedent that "at risk of loss due to nonpayment of taxes" has the plain dictionary meaning of "vulnerable to loss due to nonpayment of taxes", and has to be decided on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the homeowners resources. But for investors, it's best to assume it means anyone who has unpaid back taxes.
Since the deal also included an option for Jametsky to repurchase the home, it was clearly in the "distressed home conveyance" and "distressed home purchaser" section of 61.34, which apparently no one understands and no one knows how to lawfully abide by.
Where do you find that the supreme court found the threat of a county tax foreclosure can be used by the trial court as evidence of a ‘distressed conveyance’ under RCW 61.34? The word "conveyance" doesn't even appear in the decision (the word "conveyances" does appear near the beginning as part of the full name of the 61.34 statute, but not as any part of the court's decision). I think you mean "distressed property", which 61.34 actually calls "distressed home".
The distinction appears to be critically important in 61.34. If a deal meets the description in 61.34 of a "distressed home conveyance", then it is burdened with requirements that apparently no one understands and no one knows how to lawfully abide by. But if a deal does not meet that description, then the deal falls under the safe and sane "distressed home consulting transaction" category, even if the "distressed home consultant" is buying the home. Of course the buyer also needs to steer well clear of 61.34's felonious equity skimming section.
Also, I think Jametsky vs Olsen clearly doesn't affect distressed homeowners who are behind on their mortgage payments, because the lender pays the property tax anyway to protect their interest in the property. If you have a mortgage with a financial institution, you are not behind on your taxes no matter how far behind you may be on your mortgage. Of course if someone just has a mortgage with their Uncle Fred, anything goes.
Your point that 61.34 has been modified by case law is interesting. Have there been other precedents set, besides Jametsky vs Olsen, that modified 61.34?
I believe I've charted two narrow but safe courses through 61.34, both described at the link I provided in the original post. It would be interesting if anyone would comment on them.
