Darrin Class, Attorney at Law
Description
Construction, Real Estate & Civil Litigation Attorney assisting clients in SW Washington and Portland, Oregon. Darrin Class is a trial attorney whose practice focuses on helping small businesses and individuals with their contract, real estate, and corporate law needs and when required, protecting their rights in the trial courts of Oregon and Washington State.
Darrin has been a practicing attorney since 1992, and recently opened his own office after serving as an in-house attorney to a Vancouver based homebuilder/developer.
Darrin is an area native, graduating from the Reynolds School District, the University of Oregon, earning his Bachelor’s Degree in Finance & Marketing, and his MBA in International Business & Management, and the University of Washington, where he earned his Law Degree.
Outside of work, Darrin is the father of 4 young children, the youngest of which are twin girls he affectionately refers to as The Raccoons.
Darrin is also an avid swimmer, cross country skier, and runner often found in the early morning hours pushing a double stroller as part of his training for his next marathon.
Tell your friends
CONTACT
RECENT FACEBOOK POSTS
facebook.comADVERSE POSSESSION IN WASHINGTON BY THE ELEMENTS OPEN AND NOTORIOUS
This post is part 3 of a 6-part series on Washington’s adverse possession doctrine. As a refresher, the adverse possession doctrine generally encompasses four elements: (1) open and notorious, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) exclusive, and (4) hostile. LeBleu v. Aalgaard, 193 Wash. App. 66, 78 (2016). This post will examine the “Open and Notorious” element. While open and notorious are two distinct concepts, Washington courts treat the two as synonyms. [ 948 more words. ] http://rdclasslegal.com/adverse-possession-in-washington-by-the-elements-open-and-notorious/
ADVERSE POSSESSION IN WASHINGTON BY THE ELEMENTS EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION
This is part two of a 6-part series on Washington’s adverse possession law. The first post discussed a recent case out of Division Three of Washington’s Court of Appeals, LeBleu v. Aalgaard, 193 Wash. App. 66, 78 (2016), which provided a comprehensive overview of the law, with a concurring opinion that noted the many standards applied over time and the need for the Legislature to take action. [ 980 more words. ] http://rdclasslegal.com/adverse-possession-in-washington-by-the-elements-exclusive-possession/
R Darrin Class (@DarrinClass) posted a photo on Twitter
Playing With Fire – Admitted to the Hospital Again https://t.co/3WuhfxrmJY https://t.co/wfziOUuD4B
Agreement to an Adverse Use
The recent case of LeBleu v. Aalgaard, ____ Wn.App. ____ (No. 32908-9-III)(2016), a ruling from Division Three of the Court of Appeals, may best be summarized as “watch what you agree to, as you may be agreeing that another’s use of your property is adverse rather than giving them permission to use your land.” If you are looking for a restatement of Washington’s Adverse Possession Law, or what is wrong with it, there is no better place than LeBleu v. [ 643 more words. ] http://blog.rdclasslegal.com/agreement-to-an-adverse-use/
Wait, I changed my mind! Here’s your Earnest Money Back.
You are the Buyer in an Earnest Money Agreement to purchase land. For reasons that seem fanciful or illogical to you, the Seller terminates the agreement and offers to return your Earnest Money. Do you have any remedies? To compound the matter, let’s say that you’ve invested substantial time and money selecting the site and working to obtain permits so you may use it as intended. [ 621 more words. ] http://blog.rdclasslegal.com/wait-i-changed-my-mind-heres-your-earnest-money-back/
Don’t like how your neighbor is using their property? Let’s form an HOA, then write rules to prohibit what they are doing.
Halme v Walsh & Hasselbalch, is a case where two neighbors, over the objection of a third, attempted to put an HOA in place, then adopt rules and fine schedule to prohibit the conduct they did not like. Halme involves three neighbors who own an area of nine lots known as Nosko Track Phase 2 in Clark County. Nosko Track Phase 2, with Nosko Track Phase 1, are governed by a limited set of CCR’s adopted in 1983. [ 784 more words. ] http://blog.rdclasslegal.com/dont-like-how-your-neighbor-is-using-their-property-lets-form-an-hoa-then-write-rules-to-prohibit-what-they-are-doing/
Quiz
