[WSBARP] Residential Lease: Liquidated Damages Question

[Doug Owens]

Dear Gabriel, it seems to me that this arrangement would be impossible to enforce in light of RCW 59.18.310 that states just what the tenant who breaks a lease is liable for, and RCW 59.18.230(2) which prohibits any lease provision that has a tenant waive any rights under the Act (the exceptions in that section do not apply here).  Here the tenant would be waiving the right under RCW 59.18.310(1)(b) to have the landlord’s recovery for breach limited to the difference between the rent as agreed for the remainder of the term and the rent the landlord could realize by re renting the premises at a fair rent plus the costs incurred in re renting.  Presumably the new floors would result in a fair rent that was commensurate with the enhanced value of the property.  In any case it seems to me that a liquidated damages clause such as you describe would not be consistent with the statute.  Yours truly, Doug Owens

On May 6, 2020, at 8:46 AM, Gabriel Dietz <gabrieldietz at gmail.com<mailto:gabrieldietz at gmail.com>> wrote:

Good Morning Fellow List Mates:

I have a potential client, a landlord who is considering a 10-year residential lease in Seattle. Before the lease begins, landlord and tenant want to install new floors throughout the premises. Landlord proposes to pay for the costs of the floor installation. Tenant, in theory, would agree to a liquidated damages clause where tenant reimburses landlord for some of the costs of the floor install in the event that the tenant breaks the lease early. The amount of damages would be a straight-line amortization over the life of the lease. For example, if tenant breaks the lease in month 1, tenant would be responsible for 50% of damages. If tenant breaks the lease in month 120, tenant would not be responsible at all. Other than the typical limitations on liquidated damages under Washington law, is there anything in the Washington Residential Landlord-Tenant Act or otherwise that would prohibit/limit this structure?

Thank you in advance,
Gabe

Gabriel A. Dietz
Partner
(206) 451-3859
gabe at hdpnw.com<mailto:gabe at hdpnw.com>
www.hdpnw.com<http://www.hdpnw.com/>
[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/XvYBR2rJITmAKOo2nBbTLwFamRLzd307jA8sGNhA9o1Et1z8kkRPeXOcE2lKnZLi_F4w-Jd2Rm32YmoJy0goUqGFLP7wKCEUC-XzQ-LRiNGl0-ihI7WNL5tbD6LOHOMx45-LAy0c]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, contains privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and shred the materials and any attachments. You are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify me by email or telephone.

***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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20200506/33f11b8b/attachment.html>