[WSBARP] City of Seattle Rental Laws

[Kaitlyn Jackson]

Hi all -

One of my clients purchased a property in Seattle recently in an off-market
deal. The property has a month-to-month tenant in place. My client followed
the Seattle statute and gave the tenant 60 days notice that he was raising
the rent to market rate (rent was *way* below market rate). My client also
gave the tenant notice that he was terminating the tenancy in 90 days
because my client wants to list the property for sale (it's harder to sell
with a tenant in place - especially in Seattle when a month-to-month
tenancy can only be terminated by a Landlord "for cause"). My client
followed the "just cause" statute as it related to notice requirements for
terminating the tenancy for "cause" that the property would be listed for
sale.

City has contacted my client and says that his actions are retaliatory
because the previous owner had a city violation of rental ordinances which
occurred within 90 days of my client's notices. City claims my client is
"retaliating." City also says my client should give more notice because
"tenant says landlord plans to make repairs to the property."

For one, I don't think you can hold a new property owner liable for the old
property owner's actions as they relate to retaliating against a tenant
(especially if they didn't know).

For another, making "repairs" to a property after a tenant moves out is not
a violation of any law that I'm aware of that relates to landlord/tenant.
However, terminating a month-to-month tenancy in Seattle requires 120 days
notice *and* relocation assistance from the landlord (which my client
is/was aware of) if the landlord is terminating the tenancy because the
landlord intends to "substantially rehabilitate" the property. "Substantial
rehabilitation" is specifically defined in the RCWs and my client has no
plans to substantially rehabilitate the property as defined.

I have explained that the rent increase is reflective of market value, that
my client is not planning to substantially rehabilitate the property, and
the actions aren't retaliatory because my client is not responsible for
whatever went own between the tenant and the previous owner.
However, I have a feeling that the representative of the City isn't going
to budge. They want "voluntary compliance" (however, I believe my client is
not in violation and has complied with the laws that are in place regarding
proper notice and "no retaliation").

Does anyone know what happens if the City and my client can't agree to a
resolution? Anyone have any advice? I'm flabbergasted that the City would
hold my client accountable for the actions of the previous owner/landlord.

Thanks,

-- 
Thank you,

Kaitlyn R. Jackson | Attorney| DIMENSION LAW GROUP PLLC
130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 | Tukwila, WA 98188
t: *206.973.3500 *| f: *206.577.5090*| e: *kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com*|
www.dimensionlaw.com

-- 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This e-mail (including any attachments) is 
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may 
contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the 
intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Attempts to intercept 
this message are in violation of 18 USC 2511(1) of the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act, which subjects the interceptor to fines, 
imprisonment and/or civil damages. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify us by e-mail, facsimile, or telephone; 
return the e-mail to us at the e-mail address below; and destroy all paper 
and electronic copies. Any settlement offer contained herein is made 
pursuant to Washington ER 408, and without admitting fault or liability on 
the part of this firm’s client(s) or its agents.  IRS CIRCULAR 230 
DISCLAIMER:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, I 
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication 
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and 
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the 
Internal Revenue Code; or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to 
another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20191008/e319c877/attachment.html>