Settled law breeds few appeals for the simple reason that if the law is settled there are fewer issues to appeal. When new laws are passed, they can be interpreted in different ways, leading to more appealable issues.
Landlord-tenant law was once well settled but is now with a plethora of new laws it is the opposite extreme.
In the past, there were only a handful of landlord-tenant appellate cases each year. Now there are sometimes a handful of appellate developments in a single day. This week there were two important appellate decisions and oral arguments on another case with broad implications.
Settlement agreements are (essentially) unenforceable.
In a nuisance eviction case, the landlord and tenant entered into a settlement agreement. Both the landlord and tenant were represented by attorneys.
The tenant argued in a Court of Appeals Division Two case that the settlement agreement was not enforceable under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act because it waived various tenant rights. The trial court rejected that argument but the Court of Appeals this week reversed.
The landlord argued in the Court of Appeals that a ruling voiding the settlement agreement would greatly reduce the use of settlement agreements, which would not only harm landlords but also tenants, and waste judicial resources. Now that the Court of Appeals has indeed made such a ruling this may come to pass.
Specificity in eviction notices clarified.
The same day Division Two of the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on the settlement agreement case it also issued an opinion regarding the specificity required in eviction notices.
A landlord had served a notice of intent to occupy indicating that an immediate family member intended to live in the rental as their primary residence. The notice did not specify the names of the immediate family members nor their relationship to the owner.
The tenant argued on appeal that the notice did not satisfy the statutory specificity requirements in new provisions of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that the notice was valid.
The tenant also argued on appeal that a judgment for monetary damages is only available in a nonpayment eviction case, and not in eviction cases brought on other grounds. The Court of Appeals also rejected this argument but held that the landlord had not presented enough evidence of the amount of unpaid rent in this case.
Conflicts between state and local eviction laws.
Meanwhile, Division One heard oral arguments in a case that will have far-reaching ramifications.
In that case, the eviction grounds are allowed under state law but are not allowed under local Auburn law. The issue is which law controls. A decision is expected in the coming months.
Conclusions.
These cases illustrate how much landlord-tenant law is in a state of flux. And these cases are not the end even for the issues raised in them. There may be appeals to the State Supreme Court. Also, the decisions are only binding in the counties within the given Court of Appeals division. It remains to be seen how courts in the other two divisions will rule and whether the other divisions will take up the same issues.
Landlord-tenant law is complex, nuanced, and in flux. Landlords are strongly encouraged to consult with an attorney before serving any eviction notices.
While our firm was not involved in the case discussed in this post, we welcome referrals or consultations about landlord-tenant appeals.
