[WSBARP] City of Seattle Rental Laws

[Chris B]

The narrow answer to your question is that the city will issue an NOV to your client if they don’t get voluntary compliance.

Also, I recommend you carefully review TRAO as relates to “economic evictions.”  I’m pretty sure the city is considering that ordinance in this matter as well.

Chris Benis
Hecker, Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S.
321 First Avenue West, Seattle, WA  98119
206.447-1900 office – 206.447.9075 fax – www. heckerwakefield.com

This message contains information that may be CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED.  Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.  If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail chrisb at heckerwakefield.com<mailto:chrisb at heckerwakefield.com>, and delete this message. Thank you very much.
To comply with recent IRS rules, we must inform you that this message, if it contains advice relating to federal taxes, was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.  Under recent IRS rules, a taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements under federal law.  Please contact me if you would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these new rules.



From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlyn Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 9:09 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] City of Seattle Rental Laws

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|<mailto:kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com|> www.dimensionlaw.com<http://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/20191008/9044a8b5/attachment.html>