Opinion ID: 775593
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interference with Distinct

Text: Investment-Backed Expectations 66 Governmental action through regulation of the use of private property does not cause a taking unless the interference is significant. Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 F.2d at 976 (citing Andrus, 444 U.S. at 66-67). Under Washington State's IOLTA rules, by definition, Appellants Hayes's and Brown's funds would not have been placed in an IOLTA account if they were capable of generating a net interest either on their own or in a pooled interest-bearing trust account with subaccounting that will provide for computation of interest earned by each client's funds and the payment thereof to the respective party. Wash. Admission to Practice R. 12.1(c)(2). Brown recognized that fact when he testified that [w]ithout IOLTA in place I may not have earned anything. Furthermore, because escrow and land title companies, as a general practice, never placed client trust funds in interest-bearing NOW accounts, neither Brown nor Hayes could have expected their funds to have earned interest while in the hands of their respective escrow and title companies. 67 Due to the structure of the IOLTA program and the general practices of escrow and title companies, neither Brown nor Hayes could have expected his principal to earn a net interest, and thus, the IOLTA program could not have interfered with their investment-backed expectations. 68