[WSBARP] Tenancy at will

[Kaitlyn Jackson]

Athena -

You can assume that the evidence they need to present showing they
co-resided in the property for 6 months prior to the tenant vacating will
be minimal - maybe even just a declaration. The reality is that if there is
only a declaration, it may be enough to create an "issue of fact" and have
the case set for trial by the Housing Justice Project or whatever attorney
is assigned to the case (remember, many tenants qualify for tax-payer
funded attorneys now). I think that the more "sure" way of handling the
issue is to follow the procedure of offering them to apply to become a
tenant (they have to qualify under the same terms as the previous tenant)
within 30 days, and then if they don't apply or don't qualify, then their
right to occupy can be terminated.

(3) When a tenant has permanently vacated due to voluntary or involuntary
events, other than by the ending of the tenancy by the landlord, a landlord
must serve a notice to any remaining occupants who had coresided with the
tenant at least six months prior to and up to the time the tenant
permanently vacated, requiring the occupants to either apply to become a
party to the rental agreement or vacate within 30 days of service of such
notice. In processing any application from a remaining occupant under this
subsection, the landlord may require the occupant to meet the same
screening, background, and financial criteria as would any other
prospective tenant to continue the tenancy. If the occupant fails to apply
within 30 days of receipt of the notice in this subsection, or the
application is denied for failure to meet the criteria, the landlord may
commence an unlawful detainer action under this chapter. If an occupant
becomes a party to the tenancy pursuant to this subsection, a landlord may
not end the tenancy except as provided under subsection (2) of this
section. This subsection does not apply to tenants residing in subsidized
housing.


On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 12:22 PM Athena Dickerson <athena at detsparlaw.com>
wrote:

> Kaitlyn or anyone else:
>
>
>
> Has anyone had to deal with the arguments of RCW 59.18.650 in a situation
> where friends of the resident essentially squatted in a unit vacated by a
> resident and if so, what evidence do they need to show that they co-resided
> giving them protections and longer notice under this statute as opposed to
> being treated as squatters?   I assume the regular stuff like receiving
> mail, etc?
>
>
>
> Athena Makratzakis Dickerson
>
> DETHLEFS SPARWASSER
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdetsparlaw.com&c=E,1,3MignbV7JN3fDW35Ex6-X8EUG7nEGjNuKTlfq-Aje1rdb6fDs8Yt68iJDkX__xogulPxvRxqczE1jab42wQRIayCHjlfyP0fLjpZdlZRIPinoeG9OpKmAQ,,&typo=1>
>
> REICH DICKERSON PLLC
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdetsparlaw.com&c=E,1,bLSaO3IzGA_4xpDLui54w20Gh4qqnIdqihOO9lsFaFpEr3IyQlnxxNFTiURyp45gMfqeZoZNVArN8uCnWCEWoTGD7jQGcUGBlkqV6h6b1rlgrg,,&typo=1>
>
> 100 Second Avenue South, Suite 190  I  Edmonds, WA 98020
>
> P  425.776.1352  I  F 425.776.2467
>
> athena at detsparlaw.com
>
>
>
> This message and the documents attached to it, if any, contains
> confidential information from DETHLEFS SPARWASSER REICH DICKERSON PLLC, is
> intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that
> is privileged and confidential under applicable law, and/or may contain
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, destroy
> any hard copies you may have created and notify our office immediately.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Paul Neumiller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 2, 2021 12:06 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Tenancy at will
>
>
>
> “There's case law on that somewhere I can dig up if you really need it.”
>
>
>
> Kaitlyn, could you please post that case law?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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 <
> 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>
> *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
>
>
>
> *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 <
> 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>
> *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
> 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|
> <kaitlyn at dimensionlaw.com%7C>* 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.
> ***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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp



-- 
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

*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/f33af227/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20211102/f33af227/image001.jpg>