Washington Landlord Tenant Law

This has caused confusion among landlords as some apparently believe that this new law allows landlords to accept rent without forfeiting the right to evict.  It doesn’t.

The new law is really not new at all.  It amends the procedural details and forms used under a law that has been around for years.  The law that was amended is section 375 of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act.

Section 375 allows the landlord the option of serving additional pleadings on the tenant along with the summons and complaint.  The 375 notice requires that the tenant pay rent into the court registry in addition to answering the complaint.  If the tenant fails to pay rent into the registry of the court the landlord is entitled to possession via a writ of restitution without further notice regardless of whether the tenant answers the complaint.

There are several shortcomings in using section 375.

The tenant can avoid the issuance of the writ by simply serving a statement that no rent is owed.  This defeats a default under the summons and complaint and the issuance of a writ without notice under the section 375 notice.  The statement can be served by fax.

Also, the statute expressly requires the landlord to first file the action in court before serving the 375 notice.  Otherwise the tenant could not comply by paying money into the court.  This means filing fees and additional fees to an attorney to file the action.

Finally, what happens if a writ is issued under section 375 and the tenant is evicted but the landlord loses a subsequent hearing?  There does not appear to be a clear answer under current law, but most likely the landlord is liable for wrongful eviction.

Some landlords are apparently under the opinion that the landlord may accept rent under section 375 and pay it into the court registry.  This is precarious at best.

The statute requires the tenant to pay rent into the court registry.  It does not authorize the landlord to accept rent and then pay it into the court registry on the tenant’s behalf.

Even if a few court commissioners have allowed this (I am not aware of any) there is a virtual certitude that the practice will not be allowed by all court commissioners, and probably not by most.

There is a well established rule that the landlord may not accept rent after declaring the tenancy terminated and also pursue an unlawful detainer action.  Nothing in the plain language of section 375 changes this rule.  Moreover, it is also a well established rule that the statutes are construed against the landlord.