Washington Landlord Tenant Law

Archive for the ‘Washington Landlord Tenant Law’ Category

The US Supreme Court recently rendered an important decision on the right to bear arms under the US constitution.  The decision applies to government action, not private relationships such as landlord and tenant.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a public housing landlord may enforce a lease provision prohibiting tenants from possessing firearms by evicting tenants that violate it.  The court cited legal precedents that establish the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation. [1]

It is important to note that although the tenant in question had apparent mental health issues, the court upheld the eviction of the tenant not as a nuisance or threat to other tenants, but upheld the landlord’s right to enforce the lease provision banning all firearms in the leased premises.

The Washington state Supreme Court held in a 2006 decision that a city government acting in a proprietary capacity as property owner could place conditions on firearms on property.[2] The plaintiffs sought a temporary use permit from the city of Sequim for the use of city property for the purposes of a gun show.  The city placed several conditions on the use of the city facilities for the show.

The Court noted that by issuing the permit “the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner” and “that a municipal property owner like a private property owner may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests”. Read the rest of this entry »

In Washington a residential landlord may have the tenant served along with the summons and complaint a notice requiring the tenant to pay rent within seven days or serve a response indicating no rent is owed.

If the writ of restitution is issued the defendant is entitled to a hearing to dispute the amount of rent owed.

A question arises when the landlord loses the case at the subsequent hearing. Although the question is unsettled law, the tenant may have a claim for wrongful eviction.

A Washington tenant may present a claim for wrongful eviction if a writ of restitution is issued and executed upon and the tenant later successfully challenges the issuance of the writ. Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation 86 Wn.2d 562, 546 P.2d 454 (1976).

In Iverson the landlord’s attorney wrote a letter to tenant stating she could stay through a date certain upon certain conditions. One of the conditions was formally appearing in the unlawfully detainer action. The tenant did not comply and in fact her attorney withdrew when the tenant specifically instructed her attorney not to appear.

The landlord obtained and executed upon a writ of restitution. The trial court in the unlawful detainer matter (not a separate action) held the tenant’s reliance on the letter justifiable and awarded damages for wrongful eviction including “moving expenses, costs of relocation, loss of opportunity and pain and suffering”. The award was upheld on appeal.

In a case of wrongful eviction, the tenant is entitled to recover all the damages that reasonably flowed from the landlord’s wrongful act, including the expense of moving. McKennon v. Anderson, 49 Wn.2d 55, 62, 298 P.2d 492 (1956); Chung v. Louie Fong Co., 130 Wash. 154, 162, 226 P. 726 (1924). Damages must be proved with reasonable certainty or supported by competent evidence in the record. Chung v. Louie Fong Co., supra at 162; Aro Glass &Upholstery Co. v. Munson-Smith Motors, Inc., 12 Wn. App. 6, 11,528 P.2d 502 (1974). An honest and reasonable effort to mitigate damages is required. Myers v. Western Farmers Ass’n, 75 Wn.2d 133, 136, 449 P.2d 104 (1969).

See also the New York opinion 430 Realty Assoc. v. McLeod, 557 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (1990).

RCW 59.18.375 is not a final adjudication of the parties’ rights. “Issuance of a writ of restitution under this section shall not affect the defendant’s right to a hearing to contest the amount of rent alleged to be due.”

Even if it were, subject matter jurisdiction (unlike personal jurisdiction) cannot be consented to or waived and may be raised as a defense at any time. Any relief granted is void ab initio in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. In an unlawful detainer action failure to properly serve a notice to pay rent or vacate or other pre-litigation notice deprives the court of jurisdiction.

If the landlord loses on a basis that deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction the tenant has a good argument for a claim for wrongful eviction per Iverson.

This is one reason some Washington landlord attorneys do not serve RCW 59.18.375 notices.

The legislature has passed and Governor Gregoire is expected to sign Monday, March 17, 2008, a new law that changes the landlord’s obligations to store a tenant’s belongings when a tenant is evicted. Read the rest of this entry »

[IMPORTANT UPDATE: The law has changed since this article was published. See article on new law regarding storing tenant property.]

Abandonment is an absolute relinquishment of a known right.  The landlord must be prepared to prove abandonment with clear and convincing evidence.

In the event of such abandonment the landlord may immediately enter and take possession of any property of the tenant found on the premises and store it in any reasonably secure place. Read the rest of this entry »

On June 8, 2006 I wrote in an article posted on this site about the new summons for residential unlawful detainer actions in Washington.  In that article I wrote:

Amendments to the Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act went into effect yesterday….It is unclear what…courts will do when inevitably many landlord plaintiffs – acting pro se or with attorneys not familiar with the new law – come into court having served the old eviction summons.

A decision published last month by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals held that a landlord had wrongfully evicted a tenant because the landlord’s attorney had caused the tenant to be served with an older version of the eviction summons. 

Under the applicable statute as amendmended in mid 2005, the summons must contain certain mandatory language that informs the tenant that the tenant may respond by fax.  The summons the landlord’s attorney served contained a fax number, but not the mandatory language stating that the tenant may respond by fax.  

The Court of Appeals held that failure to include the language mandated by statute was fatal to the trial court’s jurisdiction and ordered the case dismissed, about a year and a half after the eviction lawsuit was originally filed.

The court made a distinction between “form and content” requirements, for which substantial compliance is sufficient, and “time and manner” requirements, for the landlord is held to a strict compliance standard. 

In the context of a residential unlawful detainer action, the summons must comply with RCW 59.18.365 to confer both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Because the unlawful detainer action is in derogation of the common law, courts must strictly construe it in favor of the tenant.

The lesson here is the law changes and a landlord should be very careful using form kits or attorneys who do not specialize in landlord-tenant law, either of which may not be up to date on landlord-tenant law.  

Scott Eller

Washington Landlord-Tenant Attorney