Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article. Under Washington unlawful detainer law the landlord should not demand non-rent items on the three-day notice to pay rent or vacate. This is because the tenants is entitled to at least 10 days to cure any non-rent breach of the lease.
Yearly Archives: 2009
15 posts
Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article. NOTE : The statute quoted in this article has since been amended. In a recent opinion Division II of the Court of Appeals upheld a $76,275.55 verdict against a landlord and the property management firm it retained.[1] In addition, the Court of Appeals added attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined for the appeal.
New federal as well as state laws protect tenants when the landlord’s property is foreclosed upon.
The Washington Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion today on an unlawful detainer case in which one of the issues raised on appeal was that the declaration of service for the notice to pay rent or vacate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.
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]
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 […]
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 […]
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]
A recent published Court of Appeals unlawful detainer case ruled on the issue of whether a landlord may accept rent after service of a notice terminating a month to month tenancy. The court ruled that the landlord did not waive the notice to terminate tenancy. After having been served a notice to terminate their month to month tenancy the tenants sent money orders marked as “rent” to the landlord. The landlord’s attorney deposited the funds in his trust account and wrote a letter to the tenants informing them that the landlord still considered their continued occupation of the premises illegal. […]
In recent years the mandatory summons for residential evictions in Washington has been amended twice. Many landlords and attorneys are still using older, out-of-date form.