[WSBARP] Written lease not acknowledged

[Roger Moss]

Given the responses posted by our colleagues, the next best step depends on PC’s objectives. Does PC desire to get rid of the tenant at any and all costs, or to reframe the deal in the best interests of the asset? The answers point to different ways of approaching the problem. 

Also, is your client the person who made the original deal, or a new owner who wants to change use or economics? Is there a larger redevelopment plan in the works?

In commercial leasing matters, looking at things through the lens of asset management is a great way to unravel problems and find mutually beneficial results. 

Roger A. Moss, Esq. 
Pacific Conflict Intervention
206.790.1971 Seattle
415.371.9724 San Francisco
www.pacific-ci.com

Confidentiality Notice: The information in this e-mail (including attachments, if any) is considered confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by reply email, delete this email, and do not disclose its contents to anyone. 

> On Jul 1, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Timothy Lehr <timothy at stileslaw.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:timothy at stileslaw.com>
> w:  www.stileslaw.com <http://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>	
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. 
> www.avg.com <https://www.avg.com/internet-security>
>  <x-msg://16/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>***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 <mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20190701/636ee7d6/attachment.html>