Other LanguagesYou have asked for our opinion on the following question: Are the bond requirements of § 5, chapter 153, Laws of 1965 (RCW 18.44.050), known as the escrow registration act, applicable to individuals, partnerships or corporations engaged in the closing of real estate transactions?
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
By a letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office on two questions which we paraphrase as follows: (1) Under the applicable statutes and rules, may shippers propose changes in the rates of regulated motor carriers to the Utilities and Transportation Commission for hearing and disposition under WAC 480-12-295? (2) In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, is there any other procedure authorized by statute or rule which would permit shippers to seek changes in carrier rates? It is our opinion that the first of these questions requires a negative reply and that the second question may be answered affirmatively, as detailed below.
You have requested the opinion of this office on three questions relating to parking and business improvement areas under chapter 45, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess. We paraphrase your questions as follows:
By recent letter you have asked whether, in our judgment, a constitutional amendment is needed in order to permit county agencies, without the approval of their respective county prosecuting attorneys, to retain other attorneys to counsel and represent them with respect to civil matters.
You have requested our opinion on the application of the conveyance stamp tax to an assignment of a vendor's interest in a real estate contract. We paraphrase your question as follows: Is an assignment, accompanied by a deed, of a vendor's interest in a real estate contract which contains a forfeiture clause, subject to the excise tax upon conveyances of real property imposed by RCW 82.20.010?
By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on three questions relating to the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement law, which we paraphrase as follows:
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 26, 1973, requesting our views with respect to certain questions pertaining to the temporary service of the same person as county prosecuting attorney and as acting county sheriff in a fourth through ninth class county.
We are in receipt of your letter dated August 26, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to disability benefits under the laws governing the new Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:
"Can the City of Kent enter into an agreement with King County whereby the City of Kent will pay a fixed percentage of any sums paid by the County to Metropolitan Transit Corporation, a privately owned transit company, for continuing to provide bus service to the Auburn-Kent area in accordance with schedules previously approved by the Utilities and Transportation Commission?"