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 […]
lease interpretation
7 posts
A landlord believed the lease required the tenant to pay $2,000 per month in rent. The tenant believed the lease required only $1,200 rent per month. For about a year and a half, the tenant paid and the landlord accepted without objection the $1,200 in rent. The landlord then served a notice to pay rent or vacate, demanding the $800 per month for the entire period. The notice to pay rent or vacate named the tenants as individuals “d/b/a KYB Farm” rather than the tenant’s correct name, “KYB FARMS, Inc.” The tenant offered $1,200 for the current month, which was […]
Ignacio and Norma had a valid lease and did nothing to warrant eviction. They renewed their lease for an additional year. One month later a new landlord bought the apartment building. The new landlord asked them to sign a new month-to-month rental agreement. The tenants refused, because the landlord was subject to the lease signed with the previous landlord. The new landlord sued Ignacio and Norma for eviction (“unlawful detainer” in legal-speak.) The parties settled. Nevertheless, because their names showed up in an eviction in court records and consequently on credit reports, they had a hard time finding a new […]
Niko’s Gourmet Inc. rented commercial space from Pacific Security Financial Inc. The owners of Niko’s Gourmet Inc. personally guaranteed the lease obligations. Pacific Security Financial Inc. sold the building to Peyton Building, LLC. Pacific Security Financial Inc. and Peyton Building, LLC. did not, however, execute an assignment of the lease.
A commercial landlord brought an eviction against its tenant. The landlord also filed a separate lawsuit for rent and other money allegedly owed. The eviction was set for trial. The landlord and tenant agreed that the tenant would vacate prior to the trial date, and the tenant in fact vacated the commercial rental property. The tenant then moved for attorney fees, arguing that the landlord did not prevail in the eviction. The trial court denied the motion for fees, noting that neither party “won” the eviction case and the separate lawsuit for rent and other alleged damages was still pending. […]
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).
In Seattle a residential tenant may only be evicted for “just cause”. The just causes are enumerated in a city ordinance. A landlord may evict a tenant in a residential tenancy in Seattle for only those causes enumerated. A month-to-month tenant is essentially a tenant in perpetuity.