[WSBARP] Defensive Equitable Estoppel vs. Offensive Promissory Estoppel - Can A Commercial Lease Guarantor Be Held Liable After Many Lease Term Extensions Not No Extension of the Guranty And No Legal and No Notary?

Wed Dec 11 10:12:52 PST 2019

Defensive equitable estoppel protects the tenant who takes possession/does
improvements from a landlord who would give a notice to terminate.
Offensive promissory estoppel allows for the landlord to obtain damages.

The question is what are the landlord's damages (if any) where the tenant
properly raises the defensive equitable estoppel and vacates the property?

To allow a landlord to collect damages for the entire lease term would
render equitable estoppel meaningless.

How about as to the guarantor?

Rob

------

Equitable estoppel is properly applied "as a `shield' or defense, while
promissory estoppel can be used as a `sword' in a cause of action for
damages." *Harberd v. City of Kettle Falls*, 84 P.3d 1241, 1252 (Div. 3,
2004); *State ex rel. D.R.M. v. Wood,* 109 Wash.App. 182, 196, 34 P.3d 887
(2001)
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=972222103401496970&q=harberd&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48>
 (quoting *Klinke v. Famous Recipe Fried Chicken, Inc.,* 94 Wash.2d 255,
259, 616 P.2d 644 (1980)
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14702378598599616897&q=harberd&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48>
).

 In Washington, the statute of frauds applies to promissory estoppel
claims. *Greaves v. Med. Imaging Sys., Inc.*, 124 Wn.2d 389, 879 P.2d 276
(1994) (rejecting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 139 (1981), which
would allow enforcement of an oral promise despite the statute of frauds if
reliance is foreseeable and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement).
RCW 64.04.010 provides that "[e]very conveyance of real estate, or any
interest therein, and every contract creating or evidencing any encumbrance
upon real estate, shall be by deed."

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:45 AM Bryce Dille <Bryce at dillelaw.com> wrote:

> I agree there is also the doctrine of part performance to take out of
> operation of S/F.In my experience most judges are very reluctant in cases
> of this type to use a technicality (Which is what most judges would
> consider this defense ) to create a month to month tenancy where for years
> the parties have considered it as a lease for years. What if shoe was on
> the other foot and LL decided to give 30 days notice to terminate the
> tenancy
>
> And tenant considered it a long term lease?
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Rob Wilson-Hoss
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 9:23 AM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Can A Commercial Lease Guarantor Be Held Liable
> After Many Lease Term Extensions Not No Extension of the Guranty And No
> Legal and No Notary?
>
>
>
> 1.     Many strong cases that say that with an unnotarized, unrecorded
> lease, it can still be valid for the sole reason that the parties have
> treated it as valid for years. Don’t even require what we are used to
> thinking about with part performance tests. Just, length of time they
> treated it as controlling. I am pretty sure some of them also deal with
> inadequate legal descriptions.
>
> 2.     There may well be some reason that the lease guarantee itself, as
> a separate contract, is not also consecrated by time. I don’t know enough
> about guarantee law to speculate.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> “Success consecrates the most offensive crimes.” Seneca the Elder.
>
>
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
>
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
>
> 236 West Birch Street
>
> Shelton, WA 98584
>
> 360 426-2999
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
>
> rob at hctc.com
>
>
>
> This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are
> hereby notified that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is
> strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify
> us by reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed
> above) and immediately delete this message and any and all of its
> attachments.  Thank you.
>
>
>
> THIS OFFICE DOES DEBT COLLECTION AND THIS E-MAIL MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO
> COLLECT A DEBT, ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  To
> the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §
> 1692) applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the
> condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to
> it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have
> the right to seek advice of legal counsel.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Rowley, Rob
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:53 AM
> *To:* WSBA RPPT <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Can A Commercial Lease Guarantor Be Held Liable After
> Many Lease Term Extensions Not No Extension of the Guranty And No Legal and
> No Notary?
>
>
>
> Assume long term commercial lease signed by sophisticated landlord and
> sophisticated corporate tenant who also signs as guarantor (spouse doesn't
> sign).  Lease was never notarized nor contain a legal description.  In my
> humble opinion it converted to a month to month tenancy after the first
> year.
>
>
>
> Assume several lease term extensions/estoppel certificate (no legal and no
> notary) between landlord and corporate tenant but no new personal
> guaranties.  Landlord claims it terminates many years in the future.
>
>
>
> I'm aware of RCW 64.04.010 and case law as to legal description
> requirements.  Read Stoebuck's Deskbook.
>
>
>
> Landlord is attempting to use offensive equitable estoppel and breach of
> warranty of authority (IMHO no such cause of action) to revive the lease
> beyond a month to month tenancy. At best they could recover damages (if
> any) under promissory estoppel for breach of the month to month tenancy.
>
>
>
> Defenses? Arguments?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Robert R. Rowley
>
> *Attorney & Counselor At Law*
>
> p:
>
> 509.252.5074  m: 509.994.1143
>
> f:
>
> 509.928.3084
>
> a:
>
> 7 S Howard St, Ste 218, Spokane, WA 99201
>
> w:
>
> rowleylegal.com  e: rob at rowleylegal.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal?>
> <https://twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-rowley-b2017211/>
>
>
>
> Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters
> in Washington and Idaho. NOTICE: The contents of this message and any
> attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
> doctrine or other applicable protections. If you are not the intended
> recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance. DISCLAIMER:
> You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means are akin to
> ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the
> level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the
> case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very well reach a
> different conclusion.
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

-- 
Robert R. Rowley
*Attorney & Counselor At Law*
p: 509.252.5074  m: 509.994.1143
f: 509.928.3084
a: 7 S Howard St, Ste 218, Spokane, WA 99201
w: rowleylegal.com  e: rob at rowleylegal.com
<https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal?>
<https://twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-rowley-b2017211/>

Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in
Washington and Idaho. NOTICE: The contents of this message and any
attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
doctrine or other applicable protections. If you are not the intended
recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender
and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance. DISCLAIMER:
You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means are akin to
ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the
level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the
case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very well reach a
different conclusion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20191211/8570a4ae/attachment.html>