[WSBARP] RCW 59.18 or RCW 59.20

[Tom Lee]

As I understand it, here, the client wants the RV and occupant gone in the
most expeditious manner. While there is no "park" present, I had to
litigate a case where NJP/volunteer attorneys jumped in to claim that
because the "tenant" was living in an RV on client's land, it was their
primary residence and, thus, case law applies that the MHLTA must be
applied (including all notices issued that may be the basis for the
unlawful detainer).

Like many landlord attorneys, the lens through which we view problems like
this is, "how do we get the tenant out in the most expeditious and
cost-effective manner?" Here, in the fact pattern presented, I would use a
90-day under RCW 59.18.650(2)(e); or, in the alternative, a 90 day that
also cites RCW 59.18.650(2)(m)*, for other good cause and provide 90-days
pursuant to the letter of the law in (2)(e). *Nothing is guaranteed in
landlord-tenant law anymore*. If you are in a county outside of Seattle,
however, usually the courts there are quite receptive to practical landlord
tenant arguments on the landlord's behalf, even if it takes two or three
hearings (because the courts will give the tenants every possible
opportunity before granting the writ).

Assuming the property is not in King, which I doubt, it is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute to issue a 90-day notice to vacate when the
owner is selling the land a tenant is residing on, even if it is not a
dwelling unit, but a recreational vehicle. I have done that in a similar
instance as this. In another instance with similar facts as this, where the
occupant was extremely hostile, I used an ejectment to ensure the occupant
was removed. Unless you get them to agree in a binding settlement agreement
to vacate, you have to pick a course of action with the client's
understanding that there is a certain degree of risk, thanks to political
decisions made in the Legislature concerning our landlord-tenant laws.

(*m) The tenant continues in possession after having received at least 60
days' advance written notice to vacate for other good cause prior to the
end of the period or rental agreement and such cause constitutes a
legitimate economic or business reason not covered or related to a basis
for ending the lease as enumerated under this subsection (2). When the
landlord relies on this basis for ending the tenancy, the court may stay
any writ of restitution for up to 60 additional days for good cause shown,
including difficulty procuring alternative housing. The court must
condition such a stay upon the tenant's continued payment of rent during
the stay period. Upon granting such a stay, the court must award court
costs and fees as allowed under this chapter;

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:29 PM Eric Lanza <eric at buzzardlaw.com> wrote:

> Perhaps this situation does not fit the original fact pattern that started
> this discussion, but I had a similar case in which the RV was parked on
> bare vacant land. Client wanted to sell the land, but I was hesitant to use
> a 90 day notice intent to sell based on the statute’s language.
>
>
>
> RCW 59.18.650(2)(e): The tenant continues in possession after the owner
> elects to sell *a single-family residence* and the landlord has provided
> at least 90 days' advance written notice of the date the tenant's
> possession is to end. For the purposes of this subsection (2)(e), an owner
> "elects to sell" when the owner makes reasonable attempts to *sell the
> dwelling* within 30 days after the tenant has vacated…”
>
>
>
> RCW 59.18.030(32) A "single-family residence" is a *structure* maintained
> and used as a single dwelling unit.
> RCW 59.18.030(10) "Dwelling unit" is a *structure or that part of a
> structure* which is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one
> person or by two or more persons maintaining a common household.
>
>
>
> In my case, the client was electing to sell raw land that had no
> structures on it.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the RV is not a structure, it is a vehicle. Finally, even if
> the RV could be construed as a dwelling unit, the client usually isn’t
> selling the RV itself, so they are not selling the “dwelling unit.”
>
>
>
> I ended up finding a different direction to go in my case, as I had
> trepidation that the NWJP attorneys were going to make some semantics
> argument that selling a piece of vacant land does not fall within the
> exception created by RCW 59.18.650(2)(e) because it does not involve the
> sale of a “structure.”
>
>
>
> I think if the land has a single family residence on it, and the RV is
> parked on the same lot as a single family residence, my concerns would be
> quelled.
>
>
>
> Has anyone encountered that argument? Am I being a little to paranoid with
> this narrow reading of the statute?
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric J. Lanza, J.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *Tom Lee
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:12 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] RCW 59.18 or RCW 59.20
>
>
>
> I would do a 90-day; while drafting, I would cite RCW 59.18.650(2)(e), and
> refresh yourself on 2(e):
>
>
>
> (e) The tenant continues in possession after the owner elects to sell a
> single-family residence and the landlord has provided at least 90 days'
> advance written notice of the date the tenant's possession is to end. For
> the purposes of this subsection (2)(e), an owner "elects to sell" when the
> owner makes reasonable attempts to sell the dwelling within 30 days after
> the tenant has vacated, including, at a minimum, listing it for sale at a
> reasonable price with a realty agency or advertising it for sale at a
> reasonable price by listing it on the real estate multiple listing service.
> There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the owner did not intend to
> sell the unit if:
>
> (i) Within 30 days after the tenant has vacated, the owner does not list
> the single-family dwelling unit for sale at a reasonable price with a
> realty agency or advertise it for sale at a reasonable price by listing it
> on the real estate multiple listing service; or
>
> (ii) Within 90 days after the date the tenant vacated or the date the
> property was listed for sale, whichever is later, the owner withdraws the
> rental unit from the market, the landlord rents the unit to someone other
> than the former tenant, or the landlord otherwise indicates that the owner
> does not intend to sell the unit;
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:59 AM <Jeff at bellanddavispllc.com> wrote:
>
> Listmates:
>
>
>
> Person leases a vacant lot on which they have their RV.  There is no
> power, septic or known water source.  Property is for sale and owner wants
> RV gone.  90 day notice to vacate (intent to sell) under RCW 59.18?  There
> is  only one RV space so technically its not a manufactured home park.  But
> I have seen stranger things.
>
>
>
> Jeff Davis
>
>
>
> *W. Jeff Davis*
>
> *BELL & DAVIS PLLC*
>
> *Attorneys at Law*
> P.O. Box 510
>
> 720 E. Washington Street, Suite 105
> Sequim WA 98382
> Phone: (360) 683.1129
> Fax: (360) 683.1258
> email: jeff at bellanddavispllc.com
> www.bellanddavispllc.com
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged,
> confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
> prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in
> error, please e-mail the sender at info at bellanddavispllc.com  or call
> 360.683.1129.
>
>
>
>
>
> ***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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *TOM LEE*
>
> Attorney
>
> *R. THOMAS LEE, PLLC* | Attorney and Counselor at Law | A Professional
> Limited Liability Company
>
> Direct: 425-219-6736
>
> rtl at rtleelaw.attorney | website: www.rtleelaw.attorney
>
> This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission
> may contain *Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or confidential
> information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above*.  If
> you are not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
> contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached documentation is strictly
> prohibited and may result in legal action against you.  Please reply to the
> Sender advising the Sender of the error in transmission and immediately
> destroy the message and any accompanying documents.  Thank you.
> ***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
>


-- 

*TOM LEE*

Attorney

*R. THOMAS LEE, PLLC* | Attorney and Counselor at Law | A Professional
Limited Liability Company

Direct: 425-219-6736

rtl at rtleelaw.attorney | website: www.rtleelaw.attorney

This E-Mail message and any documentation accompanying this transmission
may contain *Attorney Work Product, privileged, and/or confidential
information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above*.  If
you are not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby notified that
any use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-Mail message and/or attached documentation is strictly
prohibited and may result in legal action against you.  Please reply to the
Sender advising the Sender of the error in transmission and immediately
destroy the message and any accompanying documents.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221115/ca120695/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221115/ca120695/image001.png>