[Legislativecommittee1] FW: HB1081 and HB1075
Robin Aberasturi
robin.aberasturi at futuratitle.com
Mon Jan 6 09:09:21 PST 2025
I very much like the suggestion of the added Section 5. Often escrow/closing ends up trying to monitor if the contract includes the proper disclosures, etc. and put ourselves in a bad spot. If it were clear that Closing/Escrow companies are NOT responsible for confirming any compliance with this, I would be very happy!
Robin Aberasturi
VP/Corporate Escrow Manager
Futura Title & Escrow, LLC
Phone 208-955-9684 | Cell 208-250-3816
From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com> On Behalf Of George Peters
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 9:52 AM
To: 1 WLTA Legislative Committee <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>
Subject: [Legislativecommittee1] FW: HB1081 and HB1075
Importance: High
See below for the summary of a thread about this bill. Earlier emails went to the full committee, but not the recent ones. The bill is attached as well as my redline suggestions with my comments. We could use another couple of sets of eyes on
See below for the summary of a thread about this bill. Earlier emails went to the full committee, but not the recent ones.
The bill is attached as well as my redline suggestions with my comments.
We could use another couple of sets of eyes on this right away, since Carrie needs to follow up with the sponsor.
George
George Peters, WTP
Executive Director
Washington Land Title Association
https://washingtonlandtitle.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/washingtonlandtitle.com__;!!DEULSLR5O6irNg!QDQ4v2TUk79vNDGMJK9mxPyAZo8-a7M8jU5lOtsw92WyCQGZ8mBcf4o7GyuVURSa8DFLecLMZWoZm276KYfu83bshLoMUXSp79THaxvnhw$>
Mail: PO Box 328, Lynnwood, WA 98046
Delivery: 6817 208th St SW, #328, Lynnwood, WA 98036
206-437-5869 (Mobile)
206-260-4731 (Fax)
execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at wltaonline.org>
[WLTA Logo w-Ring Blue 1a][cid:image002.jpg at 01DB6023.0C6C7D40]
This is a confidential communication intended solely for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and call George Peters at 206-437-5869 immediately. Thank you.
It occurs to me that the term “notice” can also be defined, and the several sections that refer to it need not include the term “written” if that term is part of the definition.
George
From: George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: RE: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
Importance: High
Here is what I propose for the summary to pass along to the sponsor, along with the redline attached (this redline differs from my earlier one in that the comments are deleted and shown below). If all are in agreement with this, or with changes suggested by others, Carrie can pass along the summary and the attachment to the sponsor in a separate email.
I think I have figured out what the target of the bill is. I’ve included that assumption in my comment about existing Section 5 (renumbered to Section 6 in the redline).
Comments and Questions on HB 1081 by Washington Land Title Association:
1. It is unclear from New Section 5 (what “the legislature finds”) what activity the statute is intending to regulate. It would appear that a seller would being protected from low-ball offers to purchase their home without the opportunity to confirm that the offer is reasonable or that the seller could theoretically negotiate a better price. Such offers come from “we buy homes” signs on street corners, random phone calls or other means outside of working with a Realtor® (who would usually arrange a listing on an MLS or similar service). Presumably the offers are aimed at those who solicit unsophisticated individuals (typically a homeowner) who may find the offer of ready cash attractive. If there is a particular issue that can arise in such sales, perhaps it can be expressly stated in this section.
1. Presumably a Realtor® could solicit a private sale, and find a buyer (or have one in hand) without listing the property.
ONE: Would a Realtor® who arranges a private sale without listing on an MLS be subject to the statute? For example, are there any other regulations applying to Realtors® that would protect a buyer found by the Realtor® which might need to be included or referenced in this statute, and if not, should this statute expressly include Realtors® or at least not inadvertently exclude them?
TWO: Would a private buyer represented by a Realtor® be subject to the statute – that buyer would not be the one soliciting the property, at least directly. In other words, might this statute inadvertently burden a buyer who did not directly solicit the sale, which sale is still private and not based on a public listing?
1. New Section 1 should include a reference to an existing contract, since subsequent sections appear to presume that one exists. The existence of an executed contract would establish a timeline for ordering an appraisal and complying with subsequent sections.
1. NEW SECTION 1(b) should provide for written notice. (The redline language about the form of notice can be based on other RCW sections that define “written notice”.)
1. NEW SECTION 2(a) can refer to the owner in singular and not plural. The section should refer to “the” real property – again, this needs to tie the property in the contract.
1. NEW SECTIONS 2(c) and (3) should refer to the “written” notice.
1. A NEW SECTION 5 is added to clarify that third parties involved in the transaction, including title companies, escrow services, etc., continue to have rights afforded by statute.
1. A section of definitions could be added, which would clarify some of the terms as they are used in the statute. They might include:
* “publicly available” presumably this means an MLS service or a platform like Zillow or Redfin, but should be broad enough to encompass any potential publicly available listing
* “listed on the real estate market” – similarly, this presumably means an MLS service or a platform like Zillow or Redfin, but should be broad enough to encompass any potential publicly available listing.
* “real estate market”
* “potential buyer” – this should include an actual buyer once the contract has been signed.
* “purchase contract” – this should mean the specific contract that applies to the real estate under contract.
Please feel free to offer any suggestions on the above.
George
From: Carrie Tellefson <carrie at sound-gov.com<mailto:carrie at sound-gov.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 3:53 PM
To: George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>; 'Maureen Pfaff' <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Cc: 'Jp Kissling' <jpkissling at fitico.com<mailto:jpkissling at fitico.com>>; 'Michelle Taylor' <mjtaylor at firstam.com<mailto:mjtaylor at firstam.com>>; Sam Miller <sam at sound-gov.com<mailto:sam at sound-gov.com>>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
Hi All – I will ask my scheduler to try and get a meeting for us with Rep Donaghy, the bill’s prime sponsor. That said, because this bill was pre-filed, it could very well be scheduled for a hearing before we get the chance to meet with her.
I would recommend that someone put together a short summary (outline style if possible) of the issues/our concerns and our suggestions for fixing them. That can act both as a way to try to educate her via email if needed, but also as an outline for public testimony for whoever is going to testify on this bill. It would be helpful if that is circulated in a new email string with a subject heading that includes the bill number plus the bill’s short title so it’s easy to search.
As a reminder, we generally don’t go in and “oppose” a bill if it’s fixable – we try to help the legislator understand the potential unintended consequences and give them language that would address our concerns (when possible).
I would agree that this seems like a constituent issue that she is attempting to fix.
Also, can you please forward your redlined document – I don’t see it attached to this email chain.
Thanks,
Carrie
Carrie Tellefson, JD, President
Sound Government Solutions
253-576-9908 (cell)
[cid:image003.png at 01DB6023.0C6C7D40]
I understand that everyone has their own way of working. I’m sending this email at a time that suits my schedule, but there’s no expectation for you to read, reply or act on it outside your regular work hours.
From: George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 1:58 PM
To: 'Maureen Pfaff' <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Cc: 'Jp Kissling' <jpkissling at fitico.com<mailto:jpkissling at fitico.com>>, 'Michelle Taylor' <mjtaylor at firstam.com<mailto:mjtaylor at firstam.com>>, Carrie Tellefson <carrie at sound-gov.com<mailto:carrie at sound-gov.com>>
Subject: RE: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
Thanks, Michelle.
I am copying Carrie with my reply.
Carrie, as you can see, this bill creates questions that concern us. While some changes that I suggested (see the redline) might help clarify the internal bill language (and as Michelle notes, more edits would be appropriate and important), the main issue is that we can’t figure out what the problem is that the bill is trying to address.
Can you suggest an approach with the bill’s sponsor? This chain might be hard to follow, so talking with the sponsor at this point (rather that forwarding this chain of messages) might be best, but I leave it up to others as to how best to proceed.
George
George Peters, WTP
Executive Director
Washington Land Title Association
https://washingtonlandtitle.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/washingtonlandtitle.com__;!!DEULSLR5O6irNg!QDQ4v2TUk79vNDGMJK9mxPyAZo8-a7M8jU5lOtsw92WyCQGZ8mBcf4o7GyuVURSa8DFLecLMZWoZm276KYfu83bshLoMUXSp79THaxvnhw$>
Mail: PO Box 328, Lynnwood, WA 98046
Delivery: 6817 208th St SW, #328, Lynnwood, WA 98036
206-437-5869 (Mobile)
206-260-4731 (Fax)
execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at wltaonline.org>
[WLTA Logo w-Ring Blue 1a][cid:image002.jpg at 01DB6023.0C6C7D40]
This is a confidential communication intended solely for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and call George Peters at 206-437-5869 immediately. Thank you.
From: Michelle Taylor <mjtaylor at firstam.com<mailto:mjtaylor at firstam.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 11:33 AM
To: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Cc: Jp Kissling <jpkissling at fitico.com<mailto:jpkissling at fitico.com>>; George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
Hi all,
Sorry for the holiday delay. Thanks for your redlines George. I agree with your edits and that we should have a definition section. I think we need to talk to the drafter to determine intent of the vague terms, is that possible? I agree that a seller may not know that they have these protections, I haven’t thought of a way to address this issue. I do like that they require the buyer to notify them. I don’t think that there is anything in the bill that puts any burden on an outside party like escrow to police the issue. I will continue to look at it and try to come up with some more tangible suggestions.
Michelle Taylor
Area Underwriting Counsel
[Description: http://www.firstam.com/assets/email/images/email-logo.jpg]
First American Title Insurance Company
Madison Centre | 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1300 | Seattle, WA 98104
Direct: 206.615.3050
Tollfree: 800-526-7544
Facsimile: 714.481.2686
Email: mjtaylor at firstam.com<mailto:mjtaylor at firstam.com>
Should we receive emailed wiring instructions please understand that we will need to telephone a trusted individual to confirm the authenticity of the instructions prior to releasing the wire. The safety of your funds is important to us and with wire fraud on the rise we do want to add a layer of protection.
From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com>> On Behalf Of Maureen Pfaff
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 2:43 PM
To: George <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>; legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>
Subject: [External] Re: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
Thank you for jumping in on this, I see those additions now George.
I meant for my earlier email to go out to the entire committee. This bill feels like a response to a constituent's bad experience selling a house to one of the outfits that buy properties on a wholesale contract, it looks good on the surface - who would be against extra protections for unsophisticated sellers? - but implementing it in any meaningful way seems unlikely without some way to get the word out to sellers. I'm still trying to understand how the people who would fall under this new rule let alone those who they are trying to protect, will even know it exists. It would make more sense if the bill was proposing to create a new PSA for solicited real estate transactions not involving Realtors but, again, how would these transactions be identified since the people involved are not licensed in any way so it's not as if they can be notified of the new rule?
And I agree with JP and Megan's comments from the other day that we should address the Interpleader rules and try and get some safe harbor language in the bill as I don't want our LPO's to be put in the position of policing these contracts and I wouldn't want insurers open to claims if the transaction went through without these specific items properly addressed in the PSA because we didn't know it was a "solicited purchase" that fell under this rule. Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but I wanted to ask the questions that popped into my mind as I reviewed the proposed legislation.
@legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com> - do any of our attorney members (or others) have thoughts on this? I'm not sure what safe harbor language would be best, definitely not my area of expertise. I don't think we would want to include any language requiring us to ask for proof of compliance, but I also don't think we want legislation on the books that will leave us open to claims if we close a transaction that fell under these rules without our knowledge. Obviously if the buyer is a "We Buy Homes for Cash LLC" type entity we would be tipped off that those elements might need to be present, but it still wouldn't be cut and dried because it would only apply if the property hadn't been actively offered for sale when the offer was made to the seller. There are also transactions where a random individual walks up and knocks on the door of a home and solicits the homeowner to sell the property and there would be nothing to alert us to that being the case unless someone in the transaction tells us.
Maureen
________________________________
From: George <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
I agree.
I did add a new section 5 about interpleaders. The first sentence probably more important than the second. Wasn’t sure if the statute should say anything about LPOs asking for proof of compliance so maybe the second sentence shouldn't be included.
Do you think the first sentence provides sufficient safe harbor language? I didn't want to single out LPOs as the only ones to be protected.
George
Sent from my mobile phone 206-437-5869
________________________________
From: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 9:33:48 AM
To: George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
This feels like a response to a constituent's bad experience selling a house to one of the outfits that buy properties on a wholesale contract, it looks good on the surface but implementing it in any meaningful way seems unlikely without some way to get the word out to sellers. I'm still trying to understand how the people who would fall under this new rule and those who they are trying to protect will even know it exists. It would make more sense if the bill was proposing to create a new PSA for solicited real estate transactions not involving Realtors but, again, how would these transactions be identified since the people involved are not licensed in any way so it's not as if they can be notified of the new rule?
And I agree with Megan's comments from the other day that we should try and get some safe harbor language in the bill as I don't want our LPO's to be put in the position of policing these contracts and I wouldn't want insurers open to claims if the transaction went through without these specific items properly addressed in the PSA because we didn't know it was a "solicited purchase" that fell under this rule.
________________________________
From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com>> on behalf of George Peters <execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 5:54 PM
To: '1 WLTA Legislative Committee' <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
I took a stab at this. Not sure if everything is needed, but I did think it was important to clarify that later references to a purchase contract ties to a specific contract between the buyer and seller. I also think “currently publicly available” and “the real estate market” are vague terms…. And I don’t know if you can “solicit” property so maybe that phrase can be changed.
These suggested changes & my comments are in the attached redlined document and I don’t know how they’d be transmitted to whomever we might want to send them to.
No pride of authorship here…maybe too much to ask for; I’m just throwing it out for our discussion.
George
George Peters, WTP
Executive Director
Washington Land Title Association
https://washingtonlandtitle.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/washingtonlandtitle.com__;!!L1aKtqoz4WY!fPdNBZU7OZyB3Ox8mTKhIef9JWwuaIQmuonyjjEKmuHHVL5RkKkKI-bANH8Uqx0Bw9OZ0qYRkAThxmjA3JB5$>
Mail: PO Box 328, Lynnwood, WA 98046
Delivery: 6817 208th St SW, #328, Lynnwood, WA 98036
206-437-5869 (Mobile)
206-260-4731 (Fax)
execdirector at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:execdirector at wltaonline.org>
[WLTA Logo w-Ring Blue 1a][cid:image002.jpg at 01DB6023.0C6C7D40]
This is a confidential communication intended solely for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy it and call George Peters at 206-437-5869 immediately. Thank you.
From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com>> On Behalf Of Jp Kissling
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Cc: '1 WLTA Legislative Committee' <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: Re: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
It appears that we are going to be asked for a formal amendment to the bill is there someone willing to work on that? I will help where I can.
From: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Jp Kissling <jpkissling at fitico.com<mailto:jpkissling at fitico.com>>
Cc: '1 WLTA Legislative Committee' <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: Re: HB1081 and HB1075
From an escrow standpoint it seems like this bill would put the burden on us to confirm several things:
1. Is the transaction the result of a solicited offer that meets the criteria of the legislation?
2. Are the specific items included in the contract in at least 10 pt font?
3. Did the seller affirmatively acknowledge the items?
4. Were the timelines for requesting an appraisal or waiving the appraisal right met?
5. Were the timelines for cancellation without penalty or further obligation met?
Most of these (other than maybe the font size) would be reasonably easy to confirm, we do this regularly in reading contracts to be sure that requirements have been met and/or waived. I think that if the cancellation notice met the stated requirements in the contract there would be no need to interplead. Interpleading would come into play if the contract was rescinded outside of the stated timeline and then it would be handled as usual - mutual agreement or we would have to interplead.
What concerns me is that we will have to determine if the sale is the result of a solicited offer or not in order to even know that these rules apply. Sometimes it's obvious, but not always and we all know how confusing these type of nuances can be for the general consumer.
________________________________
From: Jp Kissling <jpkissling at fitico.com<mailto:jpkissling at fitico.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 11:02 AM
To: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Cc: '1 WLTA Legislative Committee' <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: RE: HB1081 and HB1075
they have the right to cancel the contract within 4 days of receiving the appraisal without penalty or further obligation.
From: Jp Kissling
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 10:01 AM
To: Maureen Pfaff <maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>>
Cc: '1 WLTA Legislative Committee' <legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>>
Subject: RE: HB1081 and HB1075
I feel we also need to have some clarification on the earnest money and how/ if, it will affect our ability to interplead funds RCW 64.04.220.
From: Legislativecommittee1 <legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1-bounces at washingtonlandtitle.com>> On Behalf Of Maureen Pfaff
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 9:43 AM
To: legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com<mailto:legislativecommittee1 at washingtonlandtitle.com>
Subject: [Legislativecommittee1] HB1081 and HB1075
We still need a review of HB 1075 if anyone has a few minutes to take a look at it.
I reviewed HB 1081 but have a couple of questions for the committee. This bill would provide additional protections to the seller in a transaction where the buyer actively solicited the purchase of a property that is not currently being offered for sale and where the Seller is not represented by a licensed Realtor. It would require that the contract specifically notes that the seller has a right to have an appraisal done by an appraiser of their choosing and paid for by the buyer and that they have the right to cancel the contract within 4 days of receiving the appraisal without penalty or further obligation. For owners who do not choose to have an appraisal done they have the right to cancel the contract without penalty or further obligation within 10 business days after execution. It also adds specific requirements for how these rights will be shown in the contract and that the seller must affirmatively acknowledge them. Would it fall on us to confirm that the contract in a transaction we close meets these requirements? If it doesn't and we close and insure the transaction would we be open to a claim down the road?
Maureen
[cid:image005.png at 01DB6023.0C6C7D40]
Maureen Pfaff, President and CEO
Ph: (360) 457-4451 | Fax: (844) 513-2400
403 S Peabody St, Port Angeles, WA 98362
maureen at olypentitle.com<mailto:maureen at olypentitle.com>
www.olypentitle.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http:/www.olypentitle.com/___.YXAzOmZpZGVsaXR5dGl0bGVjbzphOm86NTY3NzgzZjY2Njc3ZGVlNGYxOTgyNmMyZmU2YzM3MDU6Nzo5OTA2OmQ3MTg2YzlhYWM1M2MzMWU4MDVhZGRjNTdmNzg5ZWQyN2IzOGM0Y2I0ZGMxOWRiNmJmYzk0MDMzNzBlNjBhODQ6aDpUOkY__;!!L1aKtqoz4WY!fPdNBZU7OZyB3Ox8mTKhIef9JWwuaIQmuonyjjEKmuHHVL5RkKkKI-bANH8Uqx0Bw9OZ0qYRkAThxhTSWkla$>
WARNING – FRAUDULENT FUNDING INSTRUCTIONS
Email hacking and fraud are on the rise to fraudulently misdirect funds. Please call your escrow officer immediately using contact information found from an independent source, such as the sales contract or internet, to verify any funding instructions received. We are not responsible for any wires sent by you to an incorrect bank account.
ATTENTION LENDERS: Loan packages, complete with documents and balanced CD, must be received no later than 2:00 pm PST on the day prior to signing.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek4TwC9owwY&feature=youtu.be___.YXAzOmZpZGVsaXR5dGl0bGVjbzphOm86NTY3NzgzZjY2Njc3ZGVlNGYxOTgyNmMyZmU2YzM3MDU6NzplZTM2OjhlYjI3N2QxYTQ0NGZiMjJkODYzOGI3NWNmMzRmMjBkOWVjNWVmYTdkZmQ0YWU5NmQzMTc4ZDY3YzVlYjZhMWI6aDpUOkY__;!!L1aKtqoz4WY!fPdNBZU7OZyB3Ox8mTKhIef9JWwuaIQmuonyjjEKmuHHVL5RkKkKI-bANH8Uqx0Bw9OZ0qYRkAThxuuU_koH$>
ON WIRE FRAUD PREVENTION<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek4TwC9owwY&feature=youtu.be___.YXAzOmZpZGVsaXR5dGl0bGVjbzphOm86NTY3NzgzZjY2Njc3ZGVlNGYxOTgyNmMyZmU2YzM3MDU6Nzo2YjIwOmU4ZDljYWYyZTY4OTQ0NWQxZGY4Njg5ZWI3MmUxOGQwM2M3MTk0YjdmYmExOTUxOGUzOWQ5Y2JjZjBmM2ExOGI6aDpUOkY__;!!L1aKtqoz4WY!fPdNBZU7OZyB3Ox8mTKhIef9JWwuaIQmuonyjjEKmuHHVL5RkKkKI-bANH8Uqx0Bw9OZ0qYRkAThxslMrEzG$>
This electronic mail may constitute a client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons.
If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected.
******************************************************************************************
This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter.
If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list.
Thank you.
******************************************************************************************
FAFLD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250106/154729ca/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6078 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250106/154729ca/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68742 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250106/154729ca/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17261 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250106/154729ca/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2749 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250106/154729ca/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 76718 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.washingtonlandtitle.com/pipermail/legislativecommittee1/attachments/20250106/154729ca/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the Legislativecommittee1
mailing list