[WSBARP] Written lease not acknowledged

Mon Jul 1 10:02:15 PDT 2019

There are lots of cases, starting with basic part performance, but even
without much improvement, the length of the parties' relationship can be
enough:

Metro. Bldg. Co. v. Curtis Studio of Seattle, 138 Wash. 381, 386–87, 244 P.
680, 682 (1926):

The lease, although in writing, was for a longer period than one year, and
was not acknowledged before a notary public or other officer competent to
take acknowledgments of leases Because of this, it is contended that the
lease did not create a tenancy with a fixed and determinate term, but
created a tenancy from period to period as the rents were payable, in this
instance a tenancy from month to month, and could not be terminated by a
notice given in accordance with the *387 terms of the writing. But such a
lease is voidable rather than void, and the parties thereto may by their
acts waive their right to avoid it. Matzger v. Arcade Building & Realty Co.,
141 P. 900, 80 Wash. 401, L. R. A. 1915A, 288. As we have before stated, the
lease was entered into on January 17, 1917. Possession was taken under the
lease shortly after its execution, and the record shows that the parties
have treated it as the measure of their rights ever since that time. While
other matters could be cited sufficient to work an estoppel, this long
acquiescence in the terms of the lease is alone sufficient for that purpose.

Gattavara v. Cascade Petroleum Co., 27 Wash. 2d 263, 265–66, 177 P.2d 894,
895 (1947):

The modification agreement had been complied with for some time by both
parties. Appellant had paid the monthly rental provided therein, and
respondents had received that amount without any objection. It was but
natural that the appellant should mention the so-called modification
agreement.

Stevenson v. Parker, 25 Wash. App. 639, 643–44, 608 P.2d 1263, 1265–66
(1980):

4 Applying these elements to the facts, we find sufficient part performance
to remove the lease from the operation of the statute of frauds. First, Mrs.
Corbray took possession of the house in May 1974, under the terms of a
written lease which the parties have subsequently treated as the measure of
their rights. This long acquiescence, in itself, has been held to be a
sufficient waiver of the right to avoid a lease for lack of an
acknowledgment. Gattavara v. Cascade Petroleum Co., 27 Wash.2d 263, 265-66,
177 P.2d 894 (1947); Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. Curtis Studio of Seattle, 138
Wash. 381, 386-87, 244 P. 680 (1926).

Rob

Robert D. Wilson-Hoss 
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP 
236 West Birch Street 
Shelton, WA 98584 
360 426-2999

www.hossandwilson-hoss.com
 <mailto:rob at hctc.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
[mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Timothy Lehr
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 9:51 AM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Written lease not acknowledged

Listmates,

Has anyone dealt with a lease for more than one year that wasn’t notarized
or witnessed and whether equitable doctrines would prohibit the landlord
from terminating the lease prior to its expiration date? PC is commercial
renter with a lease to farm certain property signed by both parties for 5+
years. It was not witnessed or notarized. LL threating to terminate the
lease based on the lease not being notarized and defaulting into a 1 year
term. There’s still a few years left on the lease and PC will lose
considerable money from farming/packaging/harvesting on the property. 

RCW 59.04.010 seems to require the lease be witnessed or acknowledged if for
more than a year. I’ve also seen a couple cases that allow lease to survive
on equitable doctrines when you can show both parties relied on the lease.
Just wondering whether that is generally successful or not. 

Thanks,

Timothy C. Lehr

Attorney at Law

Stiles Law Inc., P.S.

p:   360.855.0131

e:   timothy at stileslaw.com

w:  www.stileslaw.com

NOTICE: The information contained in this email is proprietary and/or
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of
this communication, you are hereby notified to : (i) delete the email and
all copies; (ii) not disclose, distribute or use the email in any manner;
(iii) notify the sender immediately. Thank you. 

  _____  

 <https://www.avg.com/internet-security> Image removed by sender. AVG logo

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. 
www.avg.com <https://www.avg.com/internet-security>  

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190701/625260de/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD213.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190701/625260de/WRD213.jpg>