[WSBARP] UD Gurus

[Paul Moomaw]

I realize this is the opposite of what you are looking for, but I believe
Turner v. White, 20 Wn. App. 290 (1978) holds expressly that Ch. 59.12 is
not applicable to a tenancy at will.

 

Paul W. Moomaw

Mundt MacGregor L.L.P.

271 Wyatt Way NE, Suite 106

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

(206) 319-1107

 

This message contains confidential, privileged information that is
intended only for the addressee. If this message has been sent to you in
error, please call the message sender at (206) 624-5950 and delete the
message from your e-mail account. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. 

 

 

From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:32 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] UD Gurus

 

Got bounced of court today with a one week continuance by a Judge Pro Tem
who is, uhh, unfamiliar with LL/T law.  I need to now “brief” the court in
a week on why the following procedure works:

 

Girlfriend/boyfriend share house owed by boyfriend.  Big fight, sheriff
comes and arrests boyfriend and the court issues a temporary restraining
order against boyfriend (both blame and accuse the other).  Relationship
is now over though the hearing on the restraining order has not occurred.
I am representing the boyfriend who is trying to get his house back from
girlfriend who is living in the house rent free.

 

We served a Tenancy at Will Termination Notice saying that if she was not
out by a certain date, that $$$ of rent would be due and payable and that
the relationship would be governed by RCW Chapters 59.12 and 59.18.  She
didn’t pay the rent or vacate so we then served the standard combined 3
day and 20 day eviction notice and brought the action under RCW
59.12.030(3) for non-payment of rent.

 

I had to walk the judge through the legal analysis of termination of a
tenancy-at-will relationship.  She wasn’t buying the legal jump between
terminating the tenancy-at-will and bringing the UD action under RCW
59.12.  Judge asked for an RCW or case law that says this procedure is
appropriate instead of having to bring an ejectment action.  Judge Pro Tem
was unmoved by my observations that I had previously used this procedure
at least three times in the past year in that same courtroom and that many
attorneys across the State of Washington have been using this procedure.

 

Any help out there?  Anyone actually had to defend this procedure in the
past????

 

Sorry for the long post.  (I feel like I am trying to prove a negative
argument.)

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
<mailto:webmaster at wsbarppt.com> webmaster at wsbarppt.com 

 

- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

===============================
- To contact the list administrator, send a message to:
webmaster at wsbarppt.com 


- To unsubscribe, send a new message to: imail at lists.wsbarppt.com, with
the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe wsbarp - OR - send a
message to webmaster at wsbarppt.com asking that you be removed from the
wsbarp list. 

Information provided on this list should not be considered legal advice.
As with all lists - let the reader beware! No warranties or
representations are made as to the accuracy of any information provided.
All opinions and comments in this message represent the views of the
author and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Washington State
Bar Association nor its officers or agents. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 7806 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20140324/8972c103/winmail.dat>