[WSBARP] Lease renewal and sale question after R. Thoreson Homes v. Prudhorn

[Marc Holmes]

I'd like some input on a lease question in light of the recent  R. Thoreson
Homes v. Prudhorn case.

 

Client is about to sell a house in Seattle with a rental ADU.  There's a
written lease of the ADU for 1 year and 4 days (presumably the 4 days were
simply so the tenants could move in right away and the lease would still run
through the last day of the final month).  The lease explicitly states that
it terminates at the end of the lease term and would not convert to month to
month.  During the final month of the lease the parties exchanged emails
whereby the tenants solicited and the landlord offered to renew on "all the
same terms" except for a reduction to the parking arrangement.  Tenants
replied back that they'd love to stay and "everything you described below
sounds fine to us."  The tenants continue paying rent on time and all is
well.  

 

The landlord believes this created a new 1 year renewal period but I'm
concerned that it's actually a 1 year, 4 day lease since it was for a fixed
term.  If so, does the statute of frauds come into play since the "renewal"
was only via email and not notarized and render the lease something else.
God forbid it somehow morphs into month to month because the R. Thoreson
case then creates a real problem for the prospective buyer who plans to boot
the tenants at the end of the current term and re-develop the property.

 

 

 

Marc Holmes

Holmes Law Group PLLC

808 5th Ave N

Seattle WA 98109

 <http://holmeslawgroup.com/> HolmesLawGroup.com

 <mailto:marc at holmeslawgroup.com> marc at holmeslawgroup.com

Ofc: 206-357-4224

Cell: 206-849-0853

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161229/99b56659/attachment.html>