Under current Washington law for month-to-month tenancies either the landlord or tenant can end the tenancy with written notice given the last day of the rental period (usually but not always the last day of a calendar month) served at least 20 days in advance. In Seattle residential landlords must have just cause to evict, even if the tenant is month-to-month. Without just cause, the landlord has a perpetual tenant. A Seattle residential tenant meanwhile can still terminate the tenancy on 20 days notice. If a lease provision calls for more than 20 days, the parties must give the longer […]
Yearly Archives: 2017
10 posts
The purchaser at a trustee’s sale foreclosure is required to serve on all occupants a notice to vacate. The former owners and other non-tenant occupants must vacate within twenty days of the foreclosure auction. The new owner must give tenants in the foreclosed property 60 days notice to vacate. No 20-day notice to terminate tenancy or other type of pre-eviction notice is required.[1] In a recent Court of Appeals case the foreclosure sale purchaser served a notice naming a former owner. The former owner’s wife had already moved out, so the new owner did not name her in the notice […]
Some leases have provisions that stipulate that if the tenant hold over a periodic month-to-month tenancy results. Such lease provisions may not be in the landlord’s interests. Automatic month-to-month lease provisions are not necessary. The rule in Washington is that if a tenant holds over after expiration of a lease term, pays rent, and the landlord accepts the rent, a month-to-month tenancy results as a matter of law.[1] No language in the lease is necessary. The month-to-month tenancy is created by the conduct of the parties. The bottom line—if the landlord wants to keep the tenant and the tenant wants […]
Some tenants avoid service of the initial eviction lawsuit pleadings. The initial pleadings are a summons and a complaint. The summons and complaint must be served by a disinterested non-party (not the landlord) and must be placed into the hands of a resident of the rental property. If the tenant avoids service—a common problem—once the process server makes several attempts at personal service the landlord can file a motion in court to allow service of the summons and complaint by posting and mailing. Service of the summons and complaint is only legally valid if there is a court order. (This […]
Seattle landlords are required to give all residential tenants a tenant information packet and voter registration information. The City has combined the tenant information packet and the voter registration packet into one packet. [1] If the landlord fails to provide the tenant information and voter registration packet, the tenant may give notice and terminate the tenancy. The tenant may also sue the landlord for actual damages, attorney fees, and monetary penalties of up to $1,000.[2] This rule applies to all residential tenancies in Seattle, including oral agreements and/or month-to-month agreements. If you have questions about landlord-tenant law you should consult with an […]
Update: This proposal was passed into law. A proposed Seattle ordinance would limit landlords’ use of criminal history, including sex offender registration.[1] Under the proposal, among other requirements and prohibitions: landlords could not use arrest records for any purpose, since an arrest is not proof of guilt; landlords could not use criminal convictions more than two years old without a “legitimate business reason”; landlords could not use an adult’s status as a registered sex offender without a “legitimate business reason”; landlords could not use a juvenile’s status as a registered sex offender for any reason.
A new ordinance requires Seattle landlords to provide voter registration to new tenants. Seattle landlords are already required to provide an informational packet on landlord-tenant law to each new prospective renter (not only those who sign a rental agreement), at each renewal of a tenancy, and annually to all month-to-month tenants. The landlord-tenant law pamphlet can be given electronically only to existing tenants. Voter registration will be added to the landlord-tenant law packet, which is currently fifteen pages. Washington state law also requires a mold disclosure pamphlet. The voter registration requirement is the latest in a series of new burdens […]
If a landlord treats individuals with comparable criminal histories differently because of their race, national origin, or other protected characteristic this is intentional discrimination and the landlord is in violation of the Fair Housing Act (i.e., discriminatory intent liability). Until recently, a landlord could safely avoid liability if the landlord consistently applied the same standard regardless of race when screening for criminal history. It is no longer that simple. Landlords are not required to accept all applicants regardless of criminal history. But, under HUD guidelines published in 2016 landlords may face liability when using broad, blanket prohibitions on renting to […]
Chong and MariLyn Yim live with their three children in a triplex in Seattle. The only way they can afford to live in Seattle is to rent out the other two units. The Yim family shares yard space with the renters. The children are occasionally home alone in the triplex. The Yims cannot financially afford the losses caused by a bad tenancy. The Yims are concerned about compatibility and safety, as they and the children live in close proximity with their renters. The Yims have never discriminated against anyone. Kelly Lyles is a single woman living in Seattle. She is […]
Several parties entered what the Court of Appeals described as a “convoluted series of real estate transactions.”[1] Essentially, the Bohms lived in a property owned by Roesch, and real estate developer Fred was to make the mortgage payments and eventually acquire the Roesch property along with other contiguous properties. Fred failed to make the payments. The Roeschs sought to evict the Bohms in an unlawful detainer action. The matter was set for trial. The Bohms counterclaimed, seeking to quiet title. These counterclaims were not allowed because title to land cannot be litigated in an unlawful detainer action. Nevertheless, […]