Unbelievable government regulations

[SimpleLife]

In my state, apparently if the previous home owner didn't pay their utility bill, the state will force you to pay it otherwise they will file a lien on your house.

So the responsible person get's the shaft, at the hands of our so called elected representatives, at the threat of losing their house, while the deabeat is free and clear.

I'm really starting to think I might just be better off quitting my job and gettting on the government dole. Every time I turn around, responsibility is punished while being lazy and stupid is rewarded many times over.

Go to college, get a good job, climb the corporate ladder putting in long hours and putting up with BS. Only to pay for the free rent, food, health care, and phones of those who don't. WTF?!?

Idiocracy is alive and well...unfortunately.

[jacob]

Maybe the thinking is that "the house didn't pay"? Anyhoo, isn't this covered by title insurance?

Here's another one from the slap your forehead department

http://threepercenternation.com/2014/09 ... -labeling/

In case you want to switch class, consider this:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-d ... works.html

[Ego]

If there is an outstanding bill, it should be taken care of during closing. This is one of the things you've got to be careful with when buying a foreclosure. Agents should check to make sure there are no outstanding gas/electric/tax/trash bills. Did the person buy the house without an agent?

[Ego]

Anyhoo, isn't this covered by title insurance?

I think title insurance only kicks in if there is a lien on the property.

[SimpleLife]

If there is an outstanding bill, it should be taken care of during closing. This is one of the things you've got to be careful with when buying a foreclosure. Agents should check to make sure there are no outstanding gas/electric/tax/trash bills. Did the person buy the house without an agent?

Not sure where you are getting foreclosure from. I'm not talking about a specific real estate transaction, let alone a foreclosure. I'm talking about the principle of the government taking your house because the previous owner didn't pay their utility bill. Rather than taking it up with the person who used the services, either via a collection agency or other legal avenues, let's terrorize the new homeowner who will surely pay since they won't want to lose their 350K house over a water bill. It's BS. It's wrong. The fact that people don't fight this nonsense says a lot. Society values Starbucks and Dancing With the Stars above their freedom from tyranny like this.

[SimpleLife]

Maybe the thinking is that "the house didn't pay"? Anyhoo, isn't this covered by title insurance?

Here's another one from the slap your forehead department

http://threepercenternation.com/2014/09 ... -labeling/

In case you want to switch class, consider this:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-d ... works.html

I get what you are saying, but I don't see how that is even remotely close to the injustice of the state taking your house over someone elses unpaid utility bill. Apples and oranges. While the ruling is a bit weird, it doesn't enter into the same class of stupid that Washington state does.

And while your blog post hits how society and it's various classes work, I really don't see any benefit to not switching class. The only people who have upper class power are the Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerbegs of the world, that takes extreme work and a lot of "luck". In contrast, I just need to stop working to benefit from being underclass.

If I keep my income low enough, I too can qualify for government assistance. As it stands, Washington state doesn't consider assets when considering you for a handout. Just think, I could have ERE'd years ago buy dropping into the 7-11 and applying for a job. I know the losers on section 8 in my old neighborhood lived in a 300K house without paying a fucking DIME in rent. Why are they living in that kind of neighborhood instead of a slum!?!?

Sadly, nothing will ever be done about it. They will soon outnumber the produces because that's what politicians want. Everyone dependent on them, and voting for their handouts. It won't be long before they seize private accounts for redistribution to the have nots.

[SimpleLife]

Anyhoo, isn't this covered by title insurance?

I think title insurance only kicks in if there is a lien on the property.

Title insurance only covers the purchase price of the house. If you bought in 1970 for 50K and your house is now worth 2 million, your title insurance is damn near useless...

But that's beside the point. The point is that this kind of stupidity and down right governement strongarming is outrageous!

[Dragline]

This doesn't make any sense to me -- with some limited exceptions, utilities are private companies, albeit regulated ones. How can the state file a lien on property when the money is owed to a private party? Isn't it the utility that would be filing the lien and demanding payment?

And how is the government taking your house for money owed to a third party? These are completely different legal entities. Please specify the law or other source of information so I can read it.

[Chris]

Reminds me of something from the past:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2704&p=36826&hilit=#p36826

[George the original one]

Here's a description of how it works in Washington: http://blog.findwell.com/buying-a-home/ ... ton-state/

Draw your own conclusions.

[SimpleLife]

I actually found this last night: http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/pubworks/u ... llect.aspx

It goes into great detail. Apparently my water company makes it sound like some threatening act like they are going to take your house or something, when all they can really do is shut your water off for no more than 4 months, if that, depending on the circumstances.

I found this section the most interesting, yet I don't see how shutting off water service to a new homeowner for only four months, due to the previous owners deliquent bills, is somehow preventing injustice.

As indicated in the section on delinquent water accounts, RCW 35.21.290 and .300 provide for a so-called "lien" against the delinquent property, which authorizes a city to terminate water service after four months of delinquent bills have accrued. The basic rationale for limiting the water service lien to a period of four months is to prevent an injustice against a new property owner who purchases a piece of property which has a large delinquent water utility bill.

[SimpleLife]

Apparently their scare tactics have no merit:

Ch. 60.80 RCW provides that at closing, the seller of an interest in real property is responsible for satisfying any utility lien for services provided under 35.21 RCW (garbage water, electric light, electric heating), 35.67 RCW (sewers), 36.36 RCW (water or on-site sewage disposal for aquifer protection area), 36.89 RCW (stormwater), 36.94 RCW (water and sewer), 57.08 RCW (water and sewer) and 87.03 RCW (irrigation charges). The initial burden is on the closing agent to send a written request for a final billing of utility service for the property to be sold. The city must provide a written estimate or actual final billing. If the procedures outlined in the statute are not followed within the prescribed time limits, the utility may not recover unpaid charges from the purchaser of the property. A city sewer lien is also enforceable by disconnecting the water.

[GandK]

Here's a description of how it works in Washington: http://blog.findwell.com/buying-a-home/ ... ton-state/

Draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for posting this. I had the same questions Dragline had. I guess it is "believable" in areas where the government is the owner or part owner of the utilities. I don't live in an area where that's so.

Still, I'm bothered by utility bills being attached to the property instead of the property owner.

[SimpleLife]

Here's a description of how it works in Washington: http://blog.findwell.com/buying-a-home/ ... ton-state/

Draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for posting this. I had the same questions Dragline had. I guess it is "believable" in areas where the government is the owner or part owner of the utilities. I don't live in an area where that's so.

Still, I'm bothered by utility bills being attached to the property instead of the property owner.

Apparently, in my case, their threatening letter means absolutely nothing. Under the statutes of the state, they cannot attach an unpaid bill from the previous owner to the new owner and force them to pay.

It does apparently cost some people their homes though: http://consumerist.com/2012/07/10/how-d ... ater-bill/

I'm truly amazed and what the world has come to, in some cases threatening them with losing their house over someone elses bill...because it is easier to go after the person with collateral than a person who has none. Rather than doing the right thing, which is going after the person who incurred the bill.

[SimpleLife]

Here's a description of how it works in Washington: http://blog.findwell.com/buying-a-home/ ... ton-state/

Draw your own conclusions.

Yeah, the guy who wrote that article doesn't have all the facts. Checkout the link I posted. It actually goes over the various statutes on the matter. The lien is not really a lien, all they can do is shut your utilities off for no more than 4 months, and even then, this is in extremely limited cases.

The threatening letter the water company sent me holds absolutely no water (pun intended), since as a new owner, the burden does not fall on me. It's just a scare tactic to get people to pay. In my case, the previous owner did pay, but I checked with the utility company before signing and returning the paperwork.

In fact, I'm strongly considering not signing the paperwork but instead just sending them a notice of what the actual statute says, and that they have no power (no pun intended). It doesn't state that I won't get service unless I sign, though I wonder if they will try to hold me hostage. The lady on the phone sure was arrogant about it as if I didn't comply I would face the consequences...

[Dragline]

Yeah, they're full of something flushable. With their own filthy water. Tell them you understand that the bill has been paid and they can check their own records. And that they have no recourse against you in any event.

[SimpleLife]

Yeah, they're full of something flushable. With their own filthy water. Tell them you understand that the bill has been paid and they can check their own records. And that they have no recourse against you in any event.

This seems to be increasingly common. I live in an expensive area, and I've had another agency recently stop by to try to extort money for me lest I face a fine. I laughed and closed the door. Case law research shows that in cases around the country, judges have rules the regulation in question to be unconstitutional. It has never gone to the supreme court, they declined it once in the 60's, but I'm confident if I fought it a judge would rule it unconstitutional under the 14th ammendment, like other courts have. As it is now, I have still not been fined. Friends have told me it's because I live in a more bouji area where the city doesn't have real crime so they try to get money from the homeowners in the area. This seems to be the case. I'm just waiting for the next agency to come to my door to try to extort me because my lawn is too green.

[George the original one]

@SimpleLife - Since you feel so strongly about this, why aren't you contacting your legislator to get the laws repealed? Trying to fight it in the courts is very passive-aggressive and just leaves the door open. After all, in the USA, it's not "the government's" fault, it's your own fault that such laws exist because YOU are the government.

[Ego]

I just got out of training (ugh!) put on by our police community multi-family crime prevention officer. She was proud to say that if an owner of an apartment complex fails to enforce community rules and his/her tenants commit crimes, the officer will go to the property with code-enforcement and write up a ton of violations. The goal, she said, is to file a lien to collect the fines and then execute on it, forcing a sale to a more responsible owner. I was surprised by her candor and thought of this thread.

[Chad]

I just got out of training (ugh!) put on by our police community multi-family crime prevention officer. She was proud to say that if an owner of an apartment complex fails to enforce community rules and his/her tenants commit crimes, the officer will go to the property with code-enforcement and write up a ton of violations. The goal, she said, is to file a lien to collect the fines and then execute on it, forcing a sale to a more responsible owner. I was surprised by her candor and thought of this thread.

This is beyond wrong. The police are to enforce laws, not create their own. The current culture in law enforcement, especially the younger ones, scares me a little.