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 to stay, no lease language is necessary. But what if the landlord does not want the tenant to stay after the lease ends?
In Seattle residential tenancies in particular, it may be advantageous for the landlord to end the tenancy at the end of the lease term, and not allow a month-to-month tenancy. In Seattle landlords must have just cause to evict, even for a month-to-month tenancy. Some tenants may not be desirable as residents. Some tenants become hoarders, disturb other units and/or neighbors, abuse the property, create unsanitary conditions, and/or engage in various other improper behavior. Evicting such tenants for nuisance may not be cut-and-dried.
Some grounds for eviction are objective and easily proven. Ever the rent was paid or it was not. Either the lease has expired or it has not. Nuisance is not well defined in the law, is subjective, and is therefore open to interpretation. How egregious behavior must be before it is a nuisance for the purposes of landlord-tenant law and before a court will remove someone from their place of residence is not always easy to gauge.
Nuisance evictions may present proof problems as well. If the problem tenant disturbs other units, the problem tenant may simply deny such allegations. The tenants in those units must come to court and testify. The landlord’s testimony is hearsay, and not admissible as evidence. Written statements from other tenants are also hearsay. The landlord may feel it is awkward to ask other tenants to come to court. Sometimes the other tenants are uncomfortable about coming to court, and may be intimidated by the problem tenant.
The landlord is often in a better position without an automatic month-to-month provision. If the tenant is a problem, the tenancy ends at the end of the lease term—even in Seattle.[2] On the other hand, if the tenant is a not a problem and wants to stay the landlord may continue the tenancy by simply accepting rent. No lease provision is necessary, so there is no need to have one.
Automatic month-to-month lease provisions create other, more nuanced legal arguments. There, on the other hand, situations where an automatic month-to-month provision may be advantageous.
It is best to consult with a landlord-tenant attorney if unsure
[1] Worthington v. Moreland Motor Truck Co., 140 Wash. 528, 532, 250 P. 30, (1926); Lowman v. Russell,
133 Wash. 10, 11-12, 233 P.9 (1925); Whitney v. Hahn, 18 Wn.2d 198, 200-05, 138 P.2d 669 (1943); Marsh-Mclennan Bldq.. Inc. v. Clapp, 96 Wn. App. 636, 644, 980 P.2d 311 (1999).
[2] Carlstrom v. Hanline, 98 Wn. App. 780, 785, 990 P.2d 986 (2000).
