[WSBARP] house provided as condition of employment

[scott at scottgthomaslaw.com]

While this is all true, sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.  Landlords who haphazardly enter into an employment relationship with a tenant too frequently violate a variety of employment laws, including the minimum wage act.  The successful plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.  

 

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Kaitlyn Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:23 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] house provided as condition of employment

 

If this occupant is an employee of the landlord, has there been any formal employer/employee documentation? I would want to get this out of landlord/tenant world and strictly into RCW 59.12 first. One of the exemptions to RCw 59.18 is an employer/employee relationship (see highlights below). But you would need to show that this person is an employee and not an independent contractor. 

 

If employee/employer relationship cannot be shown, but this person has never paid rent nor can show any written agreement exists, I would probably do a 30 day notice to terminate occupancy and move forward with an ejectment action because your client likely cannot prove enough evidence to use any of the options under rcw 59.12. Some attorneys would try to use 59.12 in the hopes that this person doesn't bother to mount any convincing defenses and/or a commissioner doesn't buy any of the defenses, but I find that serving a summons/complaint for ejectment and setting the issue with a summary judgment or a show cause hearing to be almost as quick as a UD action and it avoids the risk of wasting time and attorneys fees prosecuting a UD that ultimately is not successful and then having to start an ejectment action. Also, I don't think the new laws that require indigent tenants to be represented by counsel apply to ejectment actions - so it also removes the risk of getting bogged down in that quagmire as well. 

 

Kaitlyn

 


RCW  <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.040> 59.18.040


Living arrangements exempted from chapter.


The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter, unless established primarily to avoid its application, in which event the provisions of this chapter shall control:

(1) Residence at an institution, whether public or private, where residence is merely incidental to detention or the provision of medical, religious, educational, recreational, or similar services, including but not limited to correctional facilities, licensed nursing homes, monasteries and convents, and hospitals;

(2) Occupancy under a bona fide earnest money agreement to purchase or contract of sale of the dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part, where the tenant is, or stands in the place of, the purchaser;

(3) Residence in a hotel, motel, or other transient lodging whose operation is defined in RCW  <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.48.010> 19.48.010;

(4) Rental agreements entered into pursuant to the provisions of chapter  <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.12> 47.12 RCW where occupancy is by an owner-condemnee and where such agreement does not violate the public policy of this state of ensuring decent, safe, and sanitary housing and is so certified by the consumer protection division of the attorney general's office;

(5) Rental agreements for the use of any single-family residence which are incidental to leases or rentals entered into in connection with a lease of land to be used primarily for agricultural purposes;

(6) Rental agreements providing housing for seasonal agricultural employees while provided in conjunction with such employment;

(7) Rental agreements with the state of Washington, department of natural resources, on public lands governed by Title  <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79> 79 RCW;

(8) Occupancy by an employee of a landlord whose right to occupy is conditioned upon employment in or about the premises.

 

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:05 PM Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com <mailto:craig at glgmail.com> > wrote:

Listmates,  I thought I saw something posted along these lines a while back but can’t seem to locate the thread.  Employer provides a house for bad employee/caretaker to live in at no charge.  Bad employee is supposed to maintain the property, collect rents from additional tenants etc.  Client wants to terminate the employment, demand an accounting and get the guy to move out.  My client is a non-English speaking person that lives on the other side of the planet. It goes without saying that there is no contract and no written agreement. Bad manager talked the client into firing the professional management company and let him move into the house and “ run the business”  My client has not seen a  dime of rent nor had any accounting for repairs etc.  If we formally terminate him what would the notice requirements be for moving out?  IS “ labor” considered “ rent “  so we have a LLT relationship requiring “ cause”? Permissive use now revoked so we are under 59.12?  The thread I recall seemed to have a magic bullet for this scenario.  I appreciate all comments and assistance.   Craig   

 

GOURLEY LAW GROUP

THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION

SNOHOMISH ESCROW 

P.O. Box 1091

Snohomish, WA 98291

PH:  (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401

Fax: (360) 568-8092 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.

 

***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




 

-- 

Thank you,

 

Kaitlyn R. Jackson, Attorney

Dimension Law Group, PLLC

Office:  206-973-3500│Fax:  206-577-5090

Email: kaitlyn@ <http://dimensionlaw.com/> dimensionlaw.com

www.dimensionlaw.com <http://www.dimensionlaw.com/> 

130 Andover Park East, Suite 300, Tukwila, WA 98188

 

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

 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This email (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 email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by email, facsimile, or telephone; return the email to us at the email address below; and destroy all paper and electronic copies. 

 

Please note that I will be going on leave starting November 15, 2021 through April 1, 2022, and will not have access to phone or email. Thomas Morningstar will be managing my cases and can be reached at Thomas at Dimensionlaw.com <mailto:Thomas at 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/20220104/299598f8/attachment.html>