[WSBARP] UD Gurus

Tue Mar 25 11:38:27 PDT 2014

Seems like most judges would grant an expedited trial upon request; so
ejectment would not necessarily take a long time.  and be aware there are
places like Seattle where tenants have beacoup rights; so be wary of
converting a squatter to a tenant.

NOTICE:  The information contained in this email may be confidential
and/or legally privileged.  It has been sent for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s).  If the reader of this message is not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication,
or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Roger Hawkes, Attorney, WSBA # 5173 

Hawkes Law Firm P.S.

206 367 5000 or roger at law-hawks.com

19909 Ballinger Way NE

Shoreline, WA 98155

www.hawkeslawcenter.com <http://www.hawkeslawcenter.com/> 

From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:04 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: RE: [WSBARP] UD Gurus

To all, thank you for your thoughts, cites, and insights.  Others on this
list have successfully briefed and argued that by giving a tenancy at will
termination notice with a demand for rent if the tenant remains in the
premises (demand for rent notice) distinguishes itself from Turner v.
White and flips the matter to standard LL/T law.

OK, so we need to discuss the words “successfully briefed and argued.”  I
am not aware of any reported decision that specifically allows the
conversion of the tenancy-at-will case to a UD case using the demand for
rent notice.  The attorneys who have successfully argued the matter won in
trial court (I imagine) but the issued was not appealed.

That gets me to Rob’s point.  He says that he successfully brought an
ejectment action but note that his case was a default case (“with no
response”).  I have also brought an ejectment action in this type of case
(person residing in the premises with permission with no rent, meth heads
BTW) and the “tenants” submitted an “answer” that was literally, “We deny
everything” written in crayon.  The judge denied my motion for default and
said I had to proceed with the ejectment action. Ouch.

So I guess the lesson is that we can all be successful if an action isn’t
challenged and I’m not finding any case or statute that says the demand
for rent works or any case or statute that says that the demand for rent
doesn’t work.  But if I had my druthers, I’d rather proceed under the
expedited procedures of the UD statutes and not under an ejectment action.

-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of swhite8893 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:15 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] UD Gurus

The unlawful detainer statutes do no apply to a tenancy at will. Turner v
White, 20 WashApp 290, 579 P.2d 140(1978)). Therefore you either have to
convert the tenancy to something else, or bring an ejectment action and do
a summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. If there is any
consideration, then it is not a tenancy at will. Najewitz, v. City of
Seattle, 21 Wash.2d 656, 152P.2d 722 (1944). 

Read Davis v. Jones, 15 Wash.2d 572. 131. p.2d 430(1942). I think that
stands for the proposition that if you are a tenancy at will, and exceed
the scope of that permission (i.e. reasonable advance notice has been
given that you are terminating the tenancy at will), you become a tenancy
by sufferance subject to the unlawful detainer statutes. Look also at
Western Union v Hansen Rowland, 166 F.2d 258 (1948), and Sarvis v Land
Resources, 62 WashApp 888, 815 P.2d 840 (1991).

     I do not think this issue is entirely clear, but I think you can make
a good faith argument from the foregoing.

Steve Whitehouse

Whitehouse & Nichols, LLP

Attorneys at Law

P.O. Box 1273

601 W. Railroad Ave.

Shelton, Wa. 98584

360-426-5885

swhite8893 at aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Neumiller <pneumiller at hotmail.com>
To: wsbarp <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 2:32 pm
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:
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. 

===============================
- 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. 

===============================
- 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: 13722 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20140325/070f3a00/winmail.dat>