Eviction Notices Must be Mailed from the Same County
September 17th, 2009 | 
Author: The Washington Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion today on an unlawful detainer case in which one of the issues raised on appeal was that the declaration of service for the notice to pay rent or vacate did not indicate that the notice was mailed from the same county. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in 
Tags: 
Landlord Liability for Injury due to Snow and Ice
Washington has adopted the Connecticut rule which requires landlords to keep common areas in a safe condition regardless whether or not the hazard is naturally occurring. [1] Read the rest of this entry »
Court of Appeals Reverses Eviction on Improper Service of Eviction Notice
Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.
Yesterday the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tenant on an appeal from an eviction case and held that service of the notice to pay rent or vacate was improper.
The landlord served only one copy of the notice to two tenants. Even though the tenants were a married couple and even though the husband handed the notice to the wife in the presence of the landlord the service of the notice was held invalid.
It is important to note that it was undisputed that both tenants actually received the notice. Nevertheless because the manner of service did not strictly comply with the statute the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and awarded attorney’s fees.
The landlord lost the case and will face paying both sides’ attorney fees for both the trial court and the appeal. This will easily run into thousands of dollars.
The time and manner of service for eviction notices is strictly construed against the landlord. Service is not synonymous with actual receipt. A landlord is well advised to either retain an attorney or contact an attorney before serving notices.
Abandonment by Residential Tenants
Abandonment must be clear and unequivocal.[1] The tenant need not expressly state an intention to abandon. Such an intention may be implied by law.[2] “This inference may be drawn from anything which amounts to an agreement on the part of the tenant to abandon.”[3]
The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act abolishes the common law right to distress for rent.[4] Any landlord who takes or detains the property of the tenant without express written consent and refuses to return the property upon demand to do so may be liable for actual damages and attorney’s fees.[5] If the refusal is intentional the landlord may in addition be liable for $100 per day up to $1,000.[6] The landlord may be liable even if not holding the property for rent.[7] Read the rest of this entry »
Implied Warranties in Commercial Leases
Courts in some jurisdictions have extended the implied warranty of habitability to commercial leases to find an implied warranty of fitness for intended purpose.[1] Some commentators find the implied warranty of fitness analogous to the implied warranty of merchantability in the Uniform Commercial Code.[2]
No Washington decision to date has found an implied warranty in commercial leases, but dicta in one opinion leaves the door open.[3] Read the rest of this entry »
