Comments on: When is a Property Disclosure Form (Form 17 ) NOT required for residential real property transfers? http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/ Musings, Resources, and Other Ramblings about real estate and home sales from the Real Estate Broker in Edgewood, Washington Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:17:11 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: David Telford http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/comment-page-1/#comment-414 David Telford Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:33:07 +0000 http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/#comment-414 Would not be the first time they screwed up like that. Just as we are now Distressed Home Consultants because they didn't copy the bill correctly in committee Would not be the first time they screwed up like that. Just as we are now Distressed Home Consultants because they didn’t copy the bill correctly in committee

]]> By: Lee Mason, The Masters Realty Group LLC http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/comment-page-1/#comment-413 Lee Mason, The Masters Realty Group LLC Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:23:43 +0000 http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/#comment-413 David, It looks to me at first glance you are correct. The RCW was revised in 2008 and it looks like they dropped the last part of the first exemption. Interestingly, if you go to the record, it appears the legislature amended RCW 64.06.010 with the intent of adding domestic partnerships to exemptions 2 and 3 but somehow didn't copy the original RCW correctly. As you said, it may be a difference without a distinction except that the buyer of a previously foreclosed upon home would now have 3 days to rescind a transaction from the time they received a copy of the Form 17 whereas previously, no Form 17 was required. Thanks for the correction. David,

It looks to me at first glance you are correct. The RCW was revised in 2008 and it looks like they dropped the last part of the first exemption.

Interestingly, if you go to the record, it appears the legislature amended RCW 64.06.010 with the intent of adding domestic partnerships to exemptions 2 and 3 but somehow didn’t copy the original RCW correctly.

As you said, it may be a difference without a distinction except that the buyer of a previously foreclosed upon home would now have 3 days to rescind a transaction from the time they received a copy of the Form 17 whereas previously, no Form 17 was required.

Thanks for the correction.

]]> By: David Telford http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/comment-page-1/#comment-412 David Telford Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:05:51 +0000 http://edgewoodblog.com/2007/09/27/when-is-a-property-disclosure-form-form-17-not-required-for-residential-real-property-transfers/#comment-412 It appears to me that the second half of the first exemption is no longer correct. Reading the RCW, a bank selling a home they foreclosed on is no longer exempt. In the real world it won't really matter, though because the bank will no nothing about the place It appears to me that the second half of the first exemption is no longer correct. Reading the RCW, a bank selling a home they foreclosed on is no longer exempt. In the real world it won’t really matter, though because the bank will no nothing about the place

]]>