The City of Seattle has declared war on landlords in a misguided effort to address the affordable housing issue. The City of Seattle has banned landlords from considering criminal history, required landlords to accept the first financially qualified applicant with no discretion, capped security deposits and other legitimate move-in charges, and forced landlords to accept security deposits and other legitimate move-in charges in installments. Seattle passed laws requiring landlords to accept essentially all applicants regardless of criminal history (the “Fair Housing Ordinance”). A rental industry association filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court challenging the Fair Housing Ordinance. The […]
Washington Landlord Tenant Law
65 posts
Washington residential landlords must accept all income sources when screening tenants under a new law that goes into effect September 30, 2018. Under the new law, Landlords must accept all sources of income, including Section 8 housing vouchers, public assistance, emergency rental assistance, veterans benefits, social security, and SSI benefits. The source of income may be from government or non-profit organizations. If a landlord requires an income threshold, any rent subsidy must be subtracted from the monthly rent before calculating whether the prospective tenant meets the income threshold. Landlords may not refuse to rent to new or current tenants based on […]
Sometimes a tenant owes the landlord for more than just the current month rent. If a tenant offers money short of the total amount owed, it is important that the landlord apply the payment to the oldest month first. Otherwise, in an eviction or civil action the court might hold that the landlord waived the prior months. For example, if the current month is February and the tenant has not paid any rent this year, then offers the amount of one month rent, the landlord should apply the payment to January, not February. If the tenant notes on the payment […]
This year bills have been introduced in both the Washington State House and Senate that would allow local governments in Washington to impose rent control on residential tenancies. Under current law local governments in Washington are prohibited from imposing rent control. The deadline for bills to pass out of committee and be presented to the house of origin was February 2. As this was not done with either the House or Senate versions of the rent control proposal, rent control appears dead for this legislative session. Doubtless battle lines have been drawn and rent control will be an issue in […]
The summons and complaint must be served by a non-party (someone other than the landlord) and served into the hands of a tenant or other resident of the rental unit. This is in contrast to the initial eviction notices. A 3-day notice to pay rent or vacate, 10-day notice to comply or vacate, or 20-day notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy may be served by the landlord. These notices may be served by the landlord themselves, and on anyone, whether they reside in the rental or not, as long as copies are also mailed to the rental property. If no […]
Seattle has had a just cause eviction ordinance for years. A recent proposal would impose a state-wide just cause eviction law for all residential tenancies in Washington.[1] The new law would make it impossible for Washington landlords to evict residential tenants—including month-to-month tenants—except for one of a few enumerated causes. The proposed just cause eviction law would extend the cure periods for non-payment of rent and other breaches of the tenancy terms to fourteen days. Current law allows the landlord to serve a 3-day notice for non-payment of rent, and a 10-day notice for any other breach of the tenancy […]
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]