[WSBARP] UD & Sub-T as Necessary Party

[Rob Rowley]

Based upon the below facts no need to serve the subtenant.  My eviction
pleadings always include the tenant/defendant and ‘all occupants at the
XXXXX address”.  By having an ‘all occupant’ as a named defendant it takes
care of any subtenants or anyone else that you may not be aware of.



The key determination is who is the tenant? This is true where the landlord
accepts rent from subtenant then they become an additional tenant or if
there is an agreement no matter how informal between landlord and
subtenant.  Mere knowledge of the existence of a sub tenancy is not in and
of itself enough to establish a tenancy.



Robert R. Rowley

Attorney At Law

(509) 252-5074 (w)

(509) 994-1143 (c)

rob at rowleylegal.com



*From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:
wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Neumiller
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:24 PM
*To:* wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
*Subject:* [WSBARP] UD & Sub-T as Necessary Party



This is a reality check and a fear of the unknown (I have never dealt with
subtenants before.)  I represent the LL.  LL rents a rural  lot with two
residences to T.  T then subleases one to the residences to sub-tenant.
Naturally, there is nothing in writing between anybody.  The Sub-T has
never paid rent directly to the LL.  LL is aware of Sub-T but not the
details.  T in default of rent.



Is Sub-T a necessary party in a UD action?  Daniels v. Ward, 35 Wn. App.
697 (Div. 1, 1983) states that a subtenant is NOT a necessary party.
Anyone think otherwise?  (I could serve Sub-T but prefer not to because of
additional expense and complications from multiple parties.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160107/05ef2bf9/attachment.html>