In the last several months I’ve seen a couple Rent to Own Agreements relating to homes which have gone seriously wrong.  There are a lot of products that you can “rent to own” in addition to homes.  Most rent to own agreements involve the purchase of furniture, electronics, cars and other high cost items.

A Lease Option is a type of rent to own agreement which relates to the purchase of a home.  In these agreements a tenant usually agrees to lease the home at a higher price than they would normally rent the property.  Often, the rent will be set aside and saved as part of a down payment and people are willing to pay above the market rate on rent because they believe they are essentially buying the house anyway.  In this way the tenant, who usually has entered into this agreement because they don’t have good credit and cannot qualify for a regular mortgage, has time to build up their credit and save towards a down payment on a house.  They also usually make what they consider a “down-payment” in order to enter into this lease option.

There are a few things that regularly go wrong (in the tenants’ mind) with these agreements and they relate to what happens if the renter/rent-to-owner defaults on the rent.

1.  Say the renter has been paying an inflated amount of rent which will go to the down payment and they have defaulted on the rent and can no longer pay.  Usually the agreement says that the renter loses the share of money that they have been paying in rent, even the inflated amount of rent the person paid to buy the home.  Or put another way, the renter will not usually get the money that they have been over-paying back if they can no longer pay rent or decide to break a lease.  So a renter has effectively put themselves into a situation where they have been overpaying for their home and they have signed a contract that says that if they default or break the contract they can’t get that money back.

2.  Say the renter/buyer has put a bunch of work into the house based on the idea that they will own it some day and they want to make improvements now.  Usually the agreement says that the renter has to pay for the work done on the house but they still have to get permission from the landlord/seller.  In this type of agreement it is unlikely that a renter/buyer will get compensated for the work they have put into the house even if the renter/buyer decides not to buy the house.

3.  Say the renter has put a down payment on the house and they default in the rent.  Usually the lease option agreement says that if the renter defaults on the rent the landlord gets to keep the down payment.  This is because according to an average rent to own/lease option contract the “down payment” is actually the money paid to the landlord in order to purchase the OPTION to purchase.  If you end up exercising the option then, and only then, does the money to purchase the option get put towards the down payment on the home.  Let me say this again: YOU ARE ONLY PURCHASING THE OPTION TO BUY THE HOUSE, YOU ARE NOT MAKING A DOWN PAYMENT ON THE HOUSE UNTIL YOU EXERCISE THE OPTION TO PURCHASE.  Until you exercise the option the relationship you have with the seller is actually more like a landlord/tenant relationship.  Be careful!

Lease Option Agreements are not all bad, they can be a way for someone who does not have good credit to buy a home.  However, it is vital that you read through the entire document and understand it so that you know what is going to happen to the money that you are investing.  If you do not understand the document then its important that you take steps to educate yourself before you sign the contract by talking to a lawyer.  I know it is be expensive, but you will end up saving money in the long run if things don’t go as planned.

On February 24, 1993, the Governor signed Executive Order 93-03, specifically implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the state of Washington. The Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of disability in the employment, services, programs, or activities of the state. In the coming months we will be writing more specifically about the Act, including how to make a complaint, how the act is enforced and its impact on individuals with disabilities in the state of WA.

For more information about the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in general, visit: http://www.ada.gov/ and for Washington and other states in the northwest, visit this very informative site: http://www.dbtacnorthwest.org/

Please find below another great article from Nolo highlighting important protections under the American with Disabilities Act.

by Attorney Amy DelPo

Employers may not discriminate against applicants and employees with disabilities.

People with disabilities make valuable contributions at work — if they are given the opportunity to do so. In the past decade, the federal government and many state governments have passed laws that give people with disabilities this opportunity. The main federal law is called the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and it and similar state laws have changed the face of the American workforce by prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities and by requiring employers to accommodate the disabilities of employees — and applicants — when possible.

Who Is Covered

The ADA and most state laws protect “qualified workers with disabilities.” Thus, someone must be a qualified worker and must have a legally recognized disability to be protected by the ADA. Let’s look more closely at these issues.

A qualified worker is a worker who can perform most basic and necessary job duties, with or without some form of accommodation from you.

There are three ways in which a worker can qualify for protection under the ADA:

• The worker has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (such as the ability to walk, talk, see, hear, breathe, reason, work, or take care of oneself). Courts tend not to categorically characterize certain conditions as disabilities. Instead, they consider the effect of the particular condition on the particular employee.
• The worker has a record or history of impairment. In other words, you may not make employment decisions based on your employee’s past disability.
• You regard the worker – even incorrectly — as having a disability. In other words, you can’t treat workers less favorably because you believe them to be disabled, even if you are wrong.

For an impairment to be a legal disability, it must be long term. Temporary impairments, such as pregnancy or broken bones, are not covered by the ADA (but may be covered by other laws.)

Reasonable Accommodation

Accommodating a worker means providing assistance or making changes in the job or workplace that will enable the worker to do the job. For example, an employer might lower the height of a desktop to accommodate a worker in a wheelchair; provide TDD telephone equipment for a worker whose hearing is impaired; or provide a quiet, distraction-free workspace for a worker with attention deficit disorder.

Negotiating an Accommodation

It is your employee’s responsibility to inform you of the disability and request a reasonable accommodation — you are not legally required to guess at what might help the employee do his or her job. However, once an employee informs you of his or her disability, you must engage in what the law calls a “flexible interactive process” — essentially, a brainstorming dialogue with your worker to figure out what kinds of accommodations might be effective and practical. You do not have to give your worker the precise accommodation he or she requests, but you must work together to come up with a reasonable solution.

Undue Hardship Exception

You don’t have to provide an accommodation if it would cause your business “undue hardship.” For instance, if the cost of an accommodation would eat up an entire year’s profits (building a new wing on your office building, for example), you don’t have to do it. Whether an accommodation qualifies as undue hardship depends on a number of factors, including:

• the cost of the accommodation
• the size and financial resources of your business
• the structure of your business, and
• the effect the accommodation would have on your business.

You and the employee may have different opinions about what constitutes a reasonable accommodation and what would be an undue hardship. If you’re unsure whether you must provide a disabled employee with a specific accommodation, you might want to get some legal help.

Alcohol and Drugs

Alcohol and drug use pose special problems under the ADA. Employees who use (or have used) alcohol or drugs may be disabled under the law. However, an employer can require these employees to meet the same work standards — including not drinking or using drugs on the job — as non disabled employees. Here are some guidelines to follow when dealing with these tricky issues:

• Alcoholism. Alcoholism is a disability covered by the ADA. This means that an employer cannot fire or discipline a worker simply for being an alcoholic. However, an employer can fire or discipline an alcoholic worker for failing to meet work-related performance and behavior standards imposed on all employees — even if the worker fails to meet these standards because of alcohol abuse.
• Illegal drug use. The ADA does not protect employees who currently use or are addicted to illegal drugs. These workers are not considered “disabled” within the meaning of the law and therefore don’t have the right to be free from discrimination or to receive a reasonable accommodation. However, the ADA does cover workers who are no longer using drugs and have successfully completed (or are currently participating in) a supervised drug rehabilitation program.
• Use of legal drugs. If an employee is taking prescription medication or over-the-counter drugs to treat a disability, you may have to accommodate that employee’s use of drugs and the side effects that the drugs have on the employee. However, you do not have to accommodate legal drug use if you cannot find a reasonable accommodation.

In an effort to make Olea LLP more accessible we recently added  Google Translator to our sidebar. There are many languages to choose from and we encourage users who speak a language other then English to try it out and report back to us! Also, during our research about website accessibility we came across an excellent resource by the BBC. The website “My Web My Way“ provides website users with a wealth of resources to make browsing the web easier. Specifically, the site explains the many ways users can change their own browser, computer, keyboard and mouse settings to make the web more accessible. The BBC website is an inspiration to us and we look forward to evolving the Olea website to provide our clients and visitors with a very positive and user friendly experience.

As reported by the CBC in Canada, after 22 years, the US is lifting its travel ban against foreigners infected with HIV and AIDS.  South Korea has also given into international pressure and has lifted its travel ban as well. We are over the moon thrilled with these events and hope all Countries with a similar ban will reconsider such discriminatory polices.  For a touching story about one of the first Canadians to cross the Washington State border since the US ban has been lifted, please read the below CBC article or click here:

I thought I would do my duty and post the Dept. of Health’s list of places to get the H1N1 vaccine.  Having fallen victim to the dreadful illness I recommend getting it if you can (I wasn’t hospitalized or anything so this is self diagnosis, but whatever it was, it was a nasty flu and I’m pretty sure that is what H1N1 is so this advice can’t hurt).

My health insurance offered to pay for it for free a while back so you should check to see if your insurer (if you have one) will give you some kind of discount, unfortunately I got sick just as the vaccine opened up to the public at large.

Obviously, this is not a public health blog, but for the last 72 hours I have been utterly focused on flu recovery and if I can keep just one person from going through that kind of nastiness I consider this a post well spent, even if its a little off topic.

In Washington State a tenant must consent to a landlord’s reasonable request to enter the rented property (RCW 59.18.150(1)).  Under the statute the landlord may enter for the following purposes:

1. To  inspect the premises,
2. To make necessary or agreed repairs, alterations, or improvements,
3. To supply necessary or agreed services, or
4. To exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors
5. (Fire officials may seek a search warrant if a landlord or tenant deny them access to search the premise for fire code violations.)

So that leaves it pretty much open as to why a landlord can enter the premise. However, under the same statute, a landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant (RCW 59.18.150(5)).  As a general rule, unless there is an emergency, they must give at least 2 days notice that they intend to enter and when they enter they must do so at reasonable times.  When the landlord is planning on showing the home to prospective buyers or tenants they must give 1 day notice of the intent to enter at a specific time.  At the same time, a landlord may not unreasonably interfere with a tenant’s enjoyment of the home by excessively exhibiting the home.

This leaves us with two questions:

1.  What should a tenant do if a landlord is entering the property without a tenant’s consent or using their right of entry to harass the tenant?

2.  What should a landlord do if a tenant is unreasonably withholding consent to enter the property?

The answer is relatively easy in theory:

A landlord or tenant who continues to violate the rights of the tenant or landlord must be served with one written notification which lists the date(s) and time(s) of the violation(s).  In other words, a landlord or tenant must basically tell the offending person that they did not fulfill their duty as a landlord or tenant on a specific date.  If the offending behavior continues the landlord or tenant is liable for up to one hundred dollars for each violation after receipt of the notice. The prevailing landlord or tenant may recover costs of the suit or arbitration under this section, and may also recover reasonable attorneys’ fees (RCW 59.18.150(7)).  One way to make this claim is by taking the issue to small claims court where there are no attorneys.

Tradition and Technology Meet Online

Charlene and Katy in front of the Brooklyn Bridge

Social consciousness and a desire to make legal services more affordable are what led CUNY alums Charlene Quincey and Katy Sheehan to launch Olea LLP, a virtual law firm. while they share a common vision, their lives are far apart, with Quincey living in Toronto, Canada, and Sheehan in Washington State.

“We knew we wanted to work together to make legal services accessible and affordable, and we knew that develop ing technology made that possible,” said Sheehan. “without a bricks-and-mortar office, we have very little overhead, and we pass these savings directly on to our clients,” explained Quincey…read more

I stumbled across this article yesterday and I completely agree with Ernie the Attorney’s premise that Google Scholar for Legal Research is a GREAT start in terms of opening up legal research to the public.  Ernie puts the issue very succinctly:

“I’ve long contended that the law should be available online for free.  Seems fitting and proper, since ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ and all.  If you can’t claim you didn’t know what the law is, then shouldn’t the government at least make the law available online for free?”

Like Louisiana where Ernie is writing, Washington State’s statutes are posted on a free online site. In my opinion it its a pretty good site, although there is no search function. But Google Scholar is the beginning of opening free case law searches to the public. In other words, this free search opens up interpretations of the law to the public which until now has been cloistered away in expensive databases like Westlaw and Lexis Nexis.

For more commentary on Google Scholar and how it affects lawyers and their researching check out this article on My Shingle “Free Legal Research by Google & What it Means”