[WSBARP] UD & Sub-T as Necessary Party

[Paul Neumiller]

Rob and Daniele, yep, that’s my analysis and my method.  I plan to serve them as “all occupants” at their separate residence.  Thanks for your input.

 



 

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Rowley
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 7:36 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] UD & Sub-T as Necessary Party

 

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)

 <mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com> rob at rowleylegal.com

 

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>  [mailto: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 <mailto: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/20160107/4f3041dc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16924 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160107/4f3041dc/image001.jpg>