Implied in every lease agreement in Washington is a covenant, or duty of the landlord, to deliver exclusive possession to the tenant.[1] Preventing a tenant from gaining exclusive possession to land to which he or she is entitled under an agreement breaches this covenant and excuses any obligation to pay rent.[2] A tenant waives the right to rescind the lease but may still sue for damages when prevented from gaining possession of the demised premises at the beginning of the term, but waiting and occupying the premises as soon as they are available.[3] A lessee who is wrongfully refused possession of […]
Landlord-Tenant Blog
153 posts
I recently taught in Tacoma a seminar on landlord-tenant law. The feedback from attendees was very positive. The sponsoring organization sent an email informing me that: The attendees who filled out an evaluation rated your presentation as Excellent. Attendees’ comments: Your presentation was informative and had good materials You appeared very knowledgeable If we can assist with questions in landlord-tenant law please do not hesitate to contact us.
I have had the pleasure of presenting two landlord-tenant lectures at continuing legal education seminars this year – one in Tacoma and another in Seattle. My topic each time was landlord and tenant obligations. The seminar sponsor shared audience feedback, which was quite positive.
Some landlords think that if they serve a notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy they can just call the sheriff once the notice expires, and the sheriff will evict the tenant. Wrong. Similarly some landlords believe if they do not care about money owed, and just want to evict a tenant – they do not need to serve a notice to pay rent or vacate. Wrong again. A landlord with a month-to-month tenant may serve a notice terminating the tenancy, even if the tenant is current on rent and otherwise in compliance with lease terms. Special rules apply […]
Washington tenants now have not just one, but two warranties of habitability. This is the upshot of a recently published Court of Appeals decision.[1] Since 1973 there has been an unresolved issue of whether there is one implied warranty defined in the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, or also another created by case law. In 1973 the Washington Supreme Court held in Foisy v. Wyman that residential tenancies have an implied warranty of habitability.[2] Also in 1973 the legislature passed into law the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA).[3] These two developments in Washington landlord-tenant law occurred independently. The Foisy case originated […]
Beginning June 07, 2012 Washington state residential landlords who charge a fee for background checks will face new requirements.[1] The landlords will be required to disclose: what types of information will be accessed to conduct the tenant screening; what criteria may result in the denial of the application; the name and address of the consumer reporting agency, if used; the prospective tenant’s right to obtain a free copy of the consumer report in the event of an adverse action and to dispute the accuracy of information in the consumer report This information must be provided […]
A Seattle landlord who represented himself in an eviction case had his case dismissed and the tenant was awarded $6,450 in attorney fees. The landlord used an old summons form missing important clauses and that had a defective return date.
New federal and state laws protect tenants whose landlords are foreclosed. According to the article “Your landlord got foreclosed. Do you have to go?” on CNNMoney.com, some banks, real estate agents, and attorneys may be preying on tenants not familiar with these laws.
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.
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.