Yes, it certainly can. If you sell a portion of your membership interests, you may realize gain that will need to be reported on your 1040 return for the year of the sale. Also, the sale should be structured so that you are protected from any claims by the purchaser after the sale if he or she becomes dissatisfied with the nature of the business. You should also be cognizant of the effect of any such sale on any due on sale clauses in any deeds of trusts that may have been executed by the...
2 people marked this answer as helpful
Highly unlikely. Assuming that you live in a Single Family Residential Urban Zone as defined in Section 30.21.025 of the Snohomish County Code, any form of construction contracting business is not allowed within that zone. If the Planning and Development Services Department will not take action to stop the use, you may do so to obtain injunctive relief and damages against the neighbor whose use is nonpermitted, as it would constitute a nuisance that courts are willing and able to alleviate....
1 person marked this answer as helpful
If you are on a month-to-month tenancy, both of the notices could apply. If you were to cure the default under the 3 -day notice by tendering payment of the rent prior to the expiration of that time, the landlord could still begin the unlawful detainer action after the expiration of the current month, based on the expiration of the 20 day notice.
1 person marked this answer as helpful
That would depend upon how long the property was vacant, what the lease provides about the requirements of the landlord with regard to an abandonment, and what the landlord has actually done about claiming that an abandonment had occurred. If the landlord relied upon the communication by tenant 1 about tenant 2's abandonment (which appears may have been reasonable because tenant 2 removed "most" of their belongings, and because tenant 2 actually "found" another residence (which, I take it,...
No. The fact that the existing roadway does not extend for the entire 60' width of the easement area does not result in the loss to the holders of the easement right of the remaining width of the easement. The Washington Court of Appeals for Div. III, which essentially covers Eastern Washington, held in 2007 in the case of 810 Properties v. Jump that an easement grant of a 40' wide road was not limited to the 15' wide roadway that was later constructed: "Generally, the dimensions of an...