Ejectment in Washington: The Proper Remedy for Removing Nontenants (and Sometimes Tenants)
Washington law provides two different legal paths for recovering possession of real property:
- Unlawful detainer — the (at least theoretically) faster, statutory eviction process, and
- Ejectment — a traditional civil lawsuit used to determine who has the superior right to possession.
Unlawful detainer is more powerful in some ways and is intended as an expedited means for an owner to regain possession of real property. These attractive attributes are less potent than they used to be, and unlawful detainer applies only to a true landlord‑tenant relationship (and a few other narrow scenarios, such as trustee’s sale foreclosures). When the person in possession is not a tenant, the unlawful detainer statutes simply do not apply—and the only available remedy is ejectment.
Who Is a Nontenant?
A person is a nontenant when they occupy property without a rental agreement, without an obligation to pay rent, and their occupancy can be ended at any time. Washington law refers to this as a tenant at will, but despite the label, it is not a landlord‑tenant relationship.
Common examples include:
- A former employee who lived on the property as part of their compensation
- A buyer in possession after a real estate sale falls through
- A friend or family member is allowed to stay temporarily without rent
- Any occupant whose stay is terminable on demand
In all of these situations, the person is not a tenant, and the owner cannot use the unlawful detainer process.
Why Unlawful Detainer Cannot Be Used Against Nontenants
Unlawful detainer is a purely statutory remedy. Courts can only use it in the exact situations the statute covers. Washington courts have repeatedly held that:
- The unlawful detainer statute does not apply to tenants at will
- Courts lack authority to evict a tenant at will through unlawful detainer
- Ejectment is the exclusive remedy for removing a non-tenant
Because the unlawful detainer statutes does not cover these occupants, the court cannot grant relief under them.
Ejectment Is the Correct—and Sometimes the Only—Remedy
Ejectment is a long‑standing civil action, now codified in RCW 7.28, and it is available to any person with a subsisting interest in real property. It is the proper remedy for:
- Tenants at will
- Occupants with no rent obligation
- Former employees living on the property
- Buyers in possession after a failed sale
- Friends, relatives, or guests who have overstayed
- Any other non-tenant whose occupancy is terminable on demand
In these situations, ejectment is not just an option—it is the only legally available path to recover possession.
Ejectment Can Also Be Used Against Tenants
Although unlawful detainer is the more common eviction tool, Washington courts have long held that ejectment is also available against tenants. Cases such as Verline v. Hyssop and Petch v. Willman confirm that unlawful detainer is not the exclusive remedy. A landlord with the right to possession may choose to bring an ejectment action instead.
This matters because ejectment and unlawful detainer are distinct causes of action:
- Unlawful detainer is a summary, highly technical statutory process.
- Ejectment is a traditional civil lawsuit focused on determining who has the superior right to possession.
Both remain available under Washington law.
Are Predicate Notices Required in Ejectment? It Depends.
For non-tenants, the rule is clear:
No statutory eviction notice is required before filing an ejectment action. Courts have stated that a party proceeding under the ejectment statute “may rely upon RCW 7.28…No notice need be given other than the bringing of the suit.”
For tenants, the law is less settled.
Historically, Washington cases held that a landlord bringing ejectment did not need to serve the statutory notices required for unlawful detainer. However, recent legislative changes to notice requirements in residential tenancies have created legal uncertainty about whether some form of notice may now be required when the occupant is a tenant.
In short:
- Against nontenants: No predicate notice is required.
- Against tenants: The law is evolving, and whether notice is required is a gray area.
Bottom Line
If the person in possession is not a tenant, the owner cannot use unlawful detainer. Ejectment is the proper—and often exclusive—remedy.
If the person is a tenant, ejectment remains available, but the notice requirements are less clear due to recent statutory changes.
Ejectment remains a flexible, long‑standing tool for enforcing the right to possession when unlawful detainer is unavailable or inappropriate.