Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article. Yesterday the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tenant on an appeal from an eviction case and held that service of the notice to pay rent or vacate was improper. The landlord served only one copy of the notice to two tenants. Even though the tenants were a married couple and even though the husband handed the notice to the wife in the presence of the landlord the service of the notice was held invalid. It is important to note that it was undisputed that […]
Landlord-Tenant Blog
150 posts
Abandonment must be clear and unequivocal.[1] The tenant need not expressly state an intention to abandon. Such an intention may be implied by law.[2] “This inference may be drawn from anything which amounts to an agreement on the part of the tenant to abandon.”[3] The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act abolishes the common law right to distress for rent.[4] Any landlord who takes or detains the property of the tenant without express written consent and refuses to return the property upon demand to do so may be liable for actual damages and attorney’s fees.[5] If the refusal is intentional the landlord may […]
Courts in some jurisdictions have extended the implied warranty of habitability to commercial leases to find an implied warranty of fitness for intended purpose.[1] Some commentators find the implied warranty of fitness analogous to the implied warranty of merchantability in the Uniform Commercial Code.[2] No Washington decision to date has found an implied warranty in commercial leases, but dicta in one opinion leaves the door open.[3]
A recent published Court of Appeals unlawful detainer case ruled on the issue of whether a landlord may accept rent after service of a notice terminating a month to month tenancy. The court ruled that the landlord did not waive the notice to terminate tenancy. After having been served a notice to terminate their month to month tenancy the tenants sent money orders marked as “rent” to the landlord. The landlord’s attorney deposited the funds in his trust account and wrote a letter to the tenants informing them that the landlord still considered their continued occupation of the premises illegal. […]
In recent years the mandatory summons for residential evictions in Washington has been amended twice. Many landlords and attorneys are still using older, out-of-date form.
Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article. In a recent unpublished opinion Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals held that despite the acceptance of rent the occupants of certain rental property were merely tenants at sufferance and subject to eviction via an unlawful detainer action.[1]
A lease expires upon end of term. This applies in a Seattle residential lease, the local just cause eviction ordinance notwithstanding. Carlstrom v. Hanline, 98 Wn. App. 780 (2000).
Generally, no. But, both residential and non-residential leases must be notarized and contain a legal description if the term exceeds a year.[1] In general an unacknowledged lease for a term exceeding one year is effective only as an oral lease and results in a tenancy from month to month.[2] Courts may under the doctrine of part performance enforce a lease that does not satisfy the statute of frauds if equity and justice so require.[3] It should be noted that the statute of frauds (a legal rule requiring certain contract to be written) affects only the validity of the lease term. […]
Many assume that in a lease to own housing transaction it is a simple matter to regain possession if the potential buyer fails to close and/or fails to pay rent. Not so fast. A landlord may bring either an unlawful detainer action or ejectment action to evict a tenant. It is far preferable for the owner to bring an unlawful detainer action. An unlawful detainer action is an expedited form of litigation narrowly tailored to the issue of possession. Counterclaims are only proper if they relate to the issue of the right of possession. However, unlawful detainer actions can only […]
[UPDATE NOTE: This bill ultimately did not pass.] A bill is being considered in Olympia that may limit landlord’s access to complete and accurate information and drive up the costs of obtaining tenant screening reports. The proposed law imposes new credit reporting obligations on tenant screening services. The new law would require them to issue only one complete screening report per tenant per sixty days and to issue a correction if information changes.