[WSBARP] Getting rid of tenant

Sat May 30 00:49:15 PDT 2015

I think the latest pronouncement on tenancies at will is the case below. It
is my understanding that the remedy is an action in ejectment under RCW
7.28. It appears that you terminated the landlord tenant relationship when
you made  demand for possession.

Howard Herman

Herman Herman & Jolley PS

509.220.5810

Turner v. White, 20 Wn.App. 290, 579 P.2d 410 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1978)

  _____  

20 Wn.App. 290 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1978)

579 P.2d 410

Richard TURNER, d/b/a Turner Farms, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Robert WHITE, Jr., Appellant.

No. 2513-44692-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 3, Panel Two.

May 31, 1978

[579 P.2d 411] Richard Smith, Ben Franklin Legal Aid Assn., Pasco, for
appellant.

       Michael Pickett, Richland, for respondent.

  _____  

Page 291

       MUNSON, Chief Judge.

       Defendant appeals from judgment entered in an unlawful detainer
action. [
<http://lawriter.net/CaseView.aspx?scd=WA&DocId=14557&Index=%5c%5c192%2e168%
2e1%2e175%5cdtsearch%5cIndex%5cWA%5cWACASEP2D&HitCount=3&hits=6e+6f+70+&hc=3
3&fcount=8&fn=579+P.2d+410%2c+20+Wn.App.+290&id=1&ct=2#FN1> 1] We reverse
and dismiss, holding that RCW 59.12.030 is not applicable against a tenant
at will.

       In April 1976, the defendant was employed by the plaintiff, and as
part of his compensation was allowed to live in a trailer house owned by
plaintiff. Defendant's employment terminated June 26, 1976, but defendant
continued to live in the trailer house. On July 8, 1976, defendant was
served with a notice of "Eviction and Notice to Vacate" which stated in part
that defendant was to vacate immediately. On July 13, defendant was served
with a summons and complaint for unlawful detainer. He vacated the trailer
house on July 26. Trial was held in November 1976 and judgment entered in
January of 1977. The court found that defendant was liable for rent from
July 11, 1976, through July 26, 1976, and doubled the rent as provided by
statute. Judgment was entered against defendant for $200 plus costs and
statutory attorney's fees.

       The unlawful detainer statute, RCW 59.12.030, et seq., is a special
statutory procedure to determine the right to possession. Tuschoff v.
Westover, 65 Wash.2d 69,
<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=395+P.2d+630&sc
d=WA> 395 P.2d 630 (1964); Young v. Riley, 59 Wash.2d 50,
<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=365+P.2d+769&sc
d=WA> 365 P.2d 769 (1961);Kessler v. Nielsen,
<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=Wash.App.&citationno=3+Wash.App
.+120&scd=WA> 3 Wash.App. 120,
<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=472+P.2d+616&sc
d=WA> 472 P.2d 616 (1970).

       RCW 59.12.030 consists of six separate sections, outlining different
circumstances under which a tenant may be guilty of unlawful detainer. They
include the following situations:

       (a) Holding over after the expiration of tenancy for a specified
time;

       (b) Continuing in possession after a 20-day notice to vacate has been
served when the tenancy is for an indefinite time with monthly or other
periodic rent reserved;

       (c) Continuing possession after default in payment of rent and tenant
has failed either to pay or vacate the premises within 3 days after service
of the notice to do so;

  _____  

Page 292

       (d) Continuing in possession after neglect or failure to perform any
of the covenants of the lease and failure to comply with the terms within 10
days after service of the notice requiring him to do so;

       (e) Committing or permitting waste or maintaining a nuisance upon the
premises and continuing in possession after service of a 3-day notice to
vacate; and

       (f) Entering upon the land of another without the owner's consent and
remaining thereon after 3-day notice to vacate.

[579 P.2d 412] Here, the tenant had come upon the premises with the
permission of the owner, the tenancy was terminable without notice and
provided for no monthly or periodic payments. The tenancy was not one within
the six sections of RCW 59.12.030. Rather, it was what was denominated in
common law as a tenancy at will which was terminable only upon demand for
possession, allowing the tenant a reasonable time to vacate. Najewitz v.
Seattle, 21 Wash.2d 656,
<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=152+P.2d+722&sc
d=WA> 152 P.2d 722 (1944).

       Having reached this result, it is unnecessary to consider other
grounds argued by defendant.

       Judgment is reversed and the complaint dismissed.

       GREEN and ROE, JJ., concur.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of PrestonFoskey
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:14 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Getting rid of tenant

Yes serve with 20 day notice to vacate by June 30, 2015.  Serve notice on or
before June 10, 2015.    If tenant does not leave initiate unlawful detainer
action.

Preston L. Foskey, Attorney at Law

WSBA # 12509

Preston L. Foskey, P. S.

8248 East D Street

Tacoma, Washington 98404-1042

Phone:  253.535.5829  Fax:  253.535.9391

E-Mail:  preston at plfps.comcastbiz.net

WARNING:  This email (including any attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), 18 U.S.C., Sec. 2510 - 2522,
is confidential and privileged.  This email is solely for the use of the
addressee(s) named above.  Receipt by anyone other than the individual
recipient is NOT a waiver of attorney-client privilege.  Any violation of
the ECPA is subject to the penalties stated therein.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO CLIENT(S):  If you are my client this email is directed to
you, DO NOT FORWARD to any other party, or you could be waiving the
attorney-client privilege.

Notice:  The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may
also be attorney-client privileged.  This information is intented only for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you are not
the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, pleasee immediately
notify me by replying to this e-mail and deleted the original.  Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Dewey Weddle
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:28 PM
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
Cc: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Getting rid of tenant

Esteemed colleagues,

Personal representative of estate has permitted a relative to live rent free
in a house owned by the estate for over a year.  No rental agreement, no
lease, and she has never paid a dime in rent.  In the waning days of last
month I sent her a letter telling her that she needed to be out of the house
by June 1, 2015 because the house needs to be either rented or sold.  

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, because now she is refusing to move
out.  I certainly am not a landlord/tenant expert, but my undertanding she
is a "tenant at will," and the PR can oust her with a demand that she
vacate.  I know she will ignore the demand.  Is unlawfual detainer the
remedy?  She needs to be out of there as quickly as possible. 

Any guidance and/or forms would be greatly appreciated.        

Best regards,

Dewey

Law Office of Dewey W. Weddle, PLLC
909 7th Street
Anacortes, WA  98221

Telephone  360-293-3600
Fax        360-293-3700

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150530/4b511b2b/attachment.html>