<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">I am rather with Paul on this one - if guilty of UD, the UD statute quite arguably still applies.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">The downside, of course, is the risk that an appellate court disagrees and finds the case should have been converted - in which case the money judgment will be invalid and the case remanded. There was just a case out today on that:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">
<span class="gmail-aBn" tabindex="0" style="border-bottom:1px dashed rgb(204,204,204);color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span class="gmail-aQJ" style="top: 2px; z-index: -1;">Jun. 5, 2018</span></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><span> </span>- 35137-8 - Luz Castellon, et vir v. Sergio Rodriguez, et ux <span> </span></span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=351378MAJ" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">http://www.courts.wa.gov/<wbr>opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&<wbr>filename=351378MAJ</a>
<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">I don't know the risk is high in most cases; and in the end I think Paul's analysis the correct one. The LL/T act is to be strictly construed, and while that is meant to protect the tenant, perhaps in this instance that benefits the landlord.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif">I have also seen the argument go so far as to say the LL still needed the writ because failing to surrender within the notice period equates ambiguity as to whether tenant truly vacated, and seeking confirmation from the court so the LL can proceed without risk of any problems is a legitimate request. The few times I've seen it argued the court agreed (or at least went along with it). Again - if an appellate court disagreed the entire thing would be remanded, but perhaps seeking a writ on those grounds (if applicable) strengthens the argument it should stay in UD proceedings.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">Carmen Rowe, Attorney/Owner<i><br><br></i></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><img src="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-SsegebS6iBQmkwSkhNWFdCaWM&revid=0B-SsegebS6iBSWFDWVhkc3B3MURTV3h6QUR4OXJQUnhrRVp3PQ" height="74" width="200"><br></font></div></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"></font></div><div><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2">Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)<br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2">Email: Carmen@GryphonLawGroup.com<br><br></font><span><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><b>Mailing address: </b>1673 S. Market Blvd. #202, Chehalis, WA 98532<br><b>Olympia/Lacey office: </b>1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503<br></font></span></div><div><span><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><b>Seattle office: </b>1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154<br></font></span></div><div><span><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><i><br></i></font></span><span><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><i><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><span><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><i>We also offer virtual meeting options, and are often available to meet with you in an alternate location convenient to you</i></font></span></font>.<br></i></font></span></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#660000" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#444444" size="1"><b>Privileged and confidential: </b>This message is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please let us know, and </font><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#444444" size="1"><span><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#444444" size="1">please delete and disregard any information it contains. </font></span>We thank you for your respect in not sharing this email with anyone. <br><br></font></div><div><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#444444" size="1">If we are communicating with you regarding a debt or monies owed, THIS MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT, AND ANY INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. You have the right to seek legal advice from an attorney. To the extent that the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies, this firm is acting as a debt collector for the firm's client named above. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes.<br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="Trebuchet MS"></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;display:inline"></div></div>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Craig, I read the statute differently from the other listserv members. I have had tenants move out after service of the summons and complaint but before the show cause hearing. When I informed the judge at the show cause hearing that the T had moved out, the judge basically tossed the file aside and said "next". Then I pointed out to the judge that while it was no longer necessary to obtain a Writ of Restitution, T still met the definition of being in unlawful detainer because T was in possession of the premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and so the LL was still entitled to a judgement. The judge frowned but signed the judgement.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">RCW 59.12.030 says that the "tenant of real property for a term less than life is guilty of unlawful detainer either: ...</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">3) When he or she continues in possession in person or by subtenant after a default in the payment of rent, and after notice in writing requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the detained premises, served (in manner in RCW 59.12.040<</span><a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.12.040" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">http://app.leg.wa.<wbr>gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.<wbr>12.040</a><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">> provided) in behalf of the person entitled to the rent upon the person owing it, has remained uncomplied with for the period of three days after service thereof. The notice may be served at any time after the rent becomes due."</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">I would argue that if T stays in the premises for ANY TIME after the 3 day notice has expired (and service of the summons and complaint), then T is "guilty of unlawful detainer." But, I guess it comes down to what does "continues in possession" mean? I have successfully argued that LL is still entitled to a judgment because the T is "guilty of unlawful detainer" even though T has vacated the premises. The section says it's unlawful detainer if T continues in possession after the end of the 3 day period, it doesn't say that T must STAY in the premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and until the Show Cause Hearing. No, I do not have case law to back it up but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.</span>
<br></div></div>