[WSBARP] Tenancy at will

Tue Nov 2 12:06:05 PDT 2021

"There's case law on that somewhere I can dig up if you really need it."

Kaitlyn, could you please post that case law?

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D7CFE1.E95FF450]

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.

E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kaitlyn Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 11:56 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Tenancy at will

Boyfriend signs a lease.  Girlfriend later moves in with boyfriend with landlord's knowledge and permission, but girlfriend does not sign a lease.  Two years later (July 2021), boyfriend and girlfriend break up.  Boyfriend moves out, but girlfriend stays.  Girlfriend does not pay rent.  Is girlfriend a tenant under 59.18 or a tenant at will?
If girlfriend pays rent directly to the landlord at any point, she's a tenant. If not, then the process in RCW 59.18.650(3).

Same facts pattern, but instead of boyfriend/girlfriend it's husband/wife.  Only husband signs lease, but wife and kids move in with landlord's knowledge and permission, but wife does not sign the lease.  They separate and husband moves out.  Wife stay and does not pay rent.  Is wife a tenant under 59.18 or a tenant at will?
Wife is a tenant. There's case law on that somewhere I can dig up if you really need it. If a spouse signs a lease "for the benefit of the marital community" they both enjoy the benefits but also the burden of the lease agreement.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:35 AM Scott Russon <scott at yatesmarshall.com<mailto:scott at yatesmarshall.com>> wrote:
Boyfriend signs a lease.  Girlfriend later moves in with boyfriend with landlord's knowledge and permission, but girlfriend does not sign a lease.  Two years later (July 2021), boyfriend and girlfriend break up.  Boyfriend moves out, but girlfriend stays.  Girlfriend does not pay rent.  Is girlfriend a tenant under 59.18 or a tenant at will?

Same facts pattern, but instead of boyfriend/girlfriend it's husband/wife.  Only husband signs lease, but wife and kids move in with landlord's knowledge and permission, but wife does not sign the lease.  They separate and husband moves out.  Wife stay and does not pay rent.  Is wife a tenant under 59.18 or a tenant at will?

The lease is silent as to who else can reside in the property with the tenant (boyfriend or husband) who signed the lease.

Sincerely yours,

SCOTT E. RUSSON
Attorney at Law

Yates Marshall, PLLC
10000 N.E. 7th Avenue, Suite 200
Vancouver, WA 98685
Phone: (360) 449-6100
Fax:    (360) 449-6111

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information in this email and attachment(s) is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee listed on this email. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at the number listed above, reply to this email that it was sent in error, then erase the e-mail and attachment(s) from your computer. Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.  This e-mail and all responses to this email may be subject to Public Disclosure.  Thank you.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Eric Nelsen
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 10:58 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Tenancy at will

I litigated this issue a few years back, as a preliminary matter when dealing with a waste claim where the cohabitant's status as tenant or not was relevant to the standard of duty relating to damage to the real property. Here's the briefing, for what it's worth. I agree with Kaitlyn that UD doesn't apply; a non-marital cohabitant who doesn't pay rent is like a tenant at will, if not actually a tenant at will, and ejectment is the remedy rather than UD.

A tenancy at will is a tenancy (a) of indefinite duration, (b) with no monthly or other periodic rent reserved, (c) terminable at the will of either landlord or tenant, without advance notice. Najewitz v. City of Seattle, 21 Wn.2d 656, 659, 152 P.2d 722 (1944); accord, Turner v. White, 20 Wn.App. 290, 292, 579 P.2d 410 (1978); see also Washington Real Property Deskbook, Vols. 1&2, Ch. 17.3(4) (WSBA 4th ed. updated 2014) (hereinafter "Real Property Deskbook"). It is not one of the statutory types of tenancies established in Washington, but rather is found at common law. Najewitz, 21 Wn.2d at 659. It is not squarely appropriate to a nonmarital cohabitant; ordinarily a tenant at will has exclusive possession of the premises. Cf. Real Property Deskbook, Vols. 1&2, Ch. 17.4(2). Also, the leading cases addressing tenancy at will do not involve a domestic relationship, but rather an employee living on an employer's premises, where occupancy is conditioned on an at-will employment relationship. See Najewitz, Turner.
                  The Common Law of Tenant At Will Should Be Modified in a Domestic Cohabitation By Consent, Waiver, Acquiescence, Estoppel and Other Equitable Principles. While tenant at will is the closest analogous category of tenancy for a domestic cohabitant, the Court should recognize that the equities between a couple in an intimate relationship substantially alter the context compared to a tenant at will in, say, an employer-employee relationship. Equitable principles of consent, waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, ratification, and others, all are applicable, and represent a method for the Court to recognize that the expectations and understandings between cohabiting intimate partners involve greater levels of equitable cooperation and leniency with regard to strict legal rights, compared to a purely economic relationship like landlord-tenant or employer-employee.
Duties under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Do Not Apply To Tenants At Will. The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, Ch. 59.18 RCW, by definition applies only to tenancies under a rental agreement. A "tenant" is only a person occupying a dwelling unit "under a rental agreement." RCW 59.18.030(27). "Rental agreement" means "all agreements which establish or modify the terms, conditions, rules, regulations, or any other provisions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit." RCW 59.18.030(25). As tenancy at will arises under the common law by mere permission and without an agreement, the RLTA therefore is not applicable. Consistent with not applying to tenancies at will, the RLTA also expressly exempts tenancies conditioned on employment, which case law states is a tenancy at will. Compare RCW 59.18.040 subsecs. (6) and (8), with Najewitz, Turner.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

Covid-19 Update - All attorneys are working remotely during regular business hours and are available via email and by phone. Videoconferencing also is available. Signing of estate planning documents can be completed and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please direct mail and deliveries to the Seattle office.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Stephen Brandli
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 10:16 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Tenancy at will

Folks,

I am sure the situation I have is common, but my research is not entirely clear.  The situation is the boyfriend/girlfriend who is living at the owner's house when things were romantic, but who refuses to leave when the romantic relationship ends.

Under the common law, this is a tenancy at will.  The question is whether the landlord-tenant act applies.  My analysis is that the simple agreement that the boyfriend/girlfriend can live at the house is a "rental agreement" as that term is defined in RCW 59.18.030, and so the boyfriend/girlfriend is a "tenant" as that term is defined in the same section, and that therefore the act applies.  Does anyone disagree with this analysis?

The question is then whether RCW 59.18.650 applies.  It appears to apply to all tenancies, including a tenancy at will.  This is not a periodic tenancy.  RCW 59.18.200(1)(a) does not apply because there is no "monthly or other periodic rent reserved."  So 59.18.650(1)(b) through (d) do not apply.  Therefore, there must be a reason under RCW 59.18.650(2).  Does this make sense to everyone?

                Steve
***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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=04%7C01%7C%7C22d3cec8a348435f967708d99e32f40b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637714763954271880%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=eUqSfviWNJi0mgZ5o%2FVgHcEh6m%2FGhTcO3uN61i4x%2BFY%3D&reserved=0>

--
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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dimensionlaw.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C22d3cec8a348435f967708d99e32f40b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637714763954281840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=M0tQXqmEUBZHX1Ihlg7zjXco8PZOBoLgHa9zQozVgec%3D&reserved=0>

Please note that I will be going on leave starting November 15, 2021, and will not have access to phone or email. I expect to return to the office April 1, 2022. My associate, Thomas Morningstar, will be managing my cases during that time.

Please note our office is closed November 24th through November 26th and December 24th through January 2nd.

Covid-19 Update - Dimension Law Group remains available to serve our clients and the public during this time, subject to the orders and recommendations of government authority.

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/20211102/30e526f8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20211102/30e526f8/image001.jpg>