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 rejected. The landlord brought an unlawful detainer action (eviction). The eviction case went to a bench trial.
The trial court found that the tenant was correct—the lease required the tenant to pay only $1,200 per month. The trial court also found that the tenant was current on rent at the time the landlord served the notice to pay rent or vacate. Nevertheless the tenant unlawfully detained the property because the tenant had not paid rent since service of the notice to pay rent or vacate. The tenant appealed.
The tenant argued that the property was never unlawfully detained because no rent was due when the notice was served, and that the notice was fatally defective, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals upheld the result in an unpublished decision.[1]\
The Court of Appeals relied on these established holdings on Washington landlord-tenant law:
The superior court derives its subject matter jurisdiction in unlawful detainer actions from the state constitution, not from the parties’ compliance with statutory procedures.[2]
Case law distinguishes defects in the “time and manner” of serving a notice from defects in a notice’s “form and content.”[3] A landlord must strictly comply with the time and manner requirements written into the statute.[4] In contrast, a landlord may substantially comply with form and content requirements on which the statute is silent.[5]
A technically inaccurate notice substantially complies with the statute if it is not misleading or deceptive to the tenant.[6]
Because the Court of Appeals decision is unpublished it cannot be cited in court. The holding runs contrary to the way many (if not most) local courts decide unlawful detainer actions—if rent was in fact current at the time the notice to pay rent or vacate was served.
Landlords and tenants should not rely on this holding, but as always should seek advice from an attorney before taking or failing to take any course of action.
Washington landlord attorney Travis Scott Eller
[1] Jin v. KYB Farms, Inc., unpublished (No. 42365-1-II)
[2] TacomaRescue Mission v. Stewart, 155 Wn. App. 250, 254 n.9, 228 P.3d 1289 (2010); accord Hous. Auth. of the City of Seattle v. Bin, 163 Wn. App. 367, 373-74, 260 P.3d 900 (2011).
[3] Marsh-McLennan Bldg., Inc. v. Clapp, 96 Wn. App. 636, 640 n.1, 980 P.2d 311 (1999).
[4] Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 372.
[5] Foisy v. Wyman, 83 Wn.2d 22, 32, 515 P.2d 160 (1973).
[6] Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Phila. v. Thrower, 155 Wash. 613, 617, 285 P. 654 (1930).
