|
I live in Washington State. According to our state law, any expired lease
agreement becomes a month-to-month agreement when the landlord accepts your
first rent payment after the lease is expired.
I leased the house where I have been living from 6/1/01 to present
(9/11/04) - - when the term of the lease (6/1/01 to 6/1/02) ended, I
continued paying on the month-to-month agreement as I understood Washington
law. (May I add -- I am a landlord's wet-dream -- I pay my rent on time,
keep up the grounds and property, have paid maintenance fees out-of-pocket
and deducted them from rent with prior approval by the landlord -- who lives
out of state, alerted them to city projects and onsite repair needs that
might have threatened their property, etc., etc., etc.)
After three years of this -- I thought -- symbiotic and friendly
relationship, my landlords made their first onsite visit to the property
since I moved in in 2001 (there is a small apartment that they stay in in
the basement) -- they visited for three weeks, made a few small repairs to
the roof of the house and a rotten board on the deck.
Today, as they informed that they are leaving tomorrow, they indicated that
they wanted me to sign a "new lease". A lease I have not had a chance to
examine, and which they have not provided. Of course, I said I would need
to see the new lease and talk it over with my spouse before I decided what
to do.
Here's my question:
Since we have been operating on a month-to-month under Washington Law for
three years, can they demand that I sign a "new lease"? -- I realize that
they can _terminate_ my tenancy (and could for the past two years) for any
reason with 20 days notice according to WA state law (as can I) -- but a
landlord asking for a _change_ (not a termination) in month-to-month
agreement by law in WA requires 30 (not 20) days notice for a change in
terms. Does this demand from month-to-month agreement to a lease constitute
a change in terms or a potential termination -- should I get a lawyer?
I've liked where I am living. I've been a model tenant. I'm just not sure
I want to live in this sudden (and unexplained shift) without knowing what
the deal is.
Thanks in advance for any help,
Carol
|
| |
| |
In article <ti19k0h4ed19h9m2u6co62895kta6c4vgp@4ax.com>, Carol Steinel
<dukster77@hotmailNOTTHIS.com> wrote:
Since we have been operating on a month-to-month under Washington Law for
three years, can they demand that I sign a "new lease"? -- I realize that
they can _terminate_ my tenancy (and could for the past two years) for any
reason with 20 days notice according to WA state law (as can I) -- but a
landlord asking for a _change_ (not a termination) in month-to-month
agreement by law in WA requires 30 (not 20) days notice for a change in
terms. Does this demand from month-to-month agreement to a lease constitute
a change in terms or a potential termination -- should I get a lawyer?
I think that you are jumping off of the deep end here. Hold the lawyers
and put down the guns. Wait until you see the new lease. Read if over,
and find out what the differences are. If you have a problem, then
don't sign, and expect to move out in two months. If I had to bet my
paycheck, the landlords simply want to get you back on a 1 year lease
so they can lock in their rental stream. It might be that there is
nothing changed in the lease. They might also not get too upset if
you don't sign, and let you stay on the month to month. It might also
be that their insurance company is requiring some new langugae in
the lease, and they want to get your signature on it. Finally, they
might want to adjust the rent upwards given that it has been the same
for a long time. This might be their way of breaking the news to you.
Wait until you know what is really going on before getting too worried.
Once you know, then post back, and we can give some more specific
advice (if you still need it at that time).
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
|
| |
| |
"Carol Steinel" <dukster77@hotmailNOTTHIS.com> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
[leasing month to month since June 2002 in Washington state]
Today, as they informed that they are leaving tomorrow, they indicated that
they wanted me to sign a "new lease". A lease I have not had a chance to
examine, and which they have not provided. Of course, I said I would need
to see the new lease and talk it over with my spouse before I decided what
to do.
If they haven't provided it, how do they expect you to sign it?
Since we have been operating on a month-to-month under Washington Law for
three years, can they demand that I sign a "new lease"?
As far as I know, yes. They can notify you that they're ending your
month-to-month tenancy and offer you a lease. Or they can, of
course, notify you that they're ending your month-to-month tenancy
and decline to offer you a new lease.
I realize that they can _terminate_ my tenancy ... for any
reason with 20 days notice according to WA state law ... but a
landlord asking for a _change_ ... in month-to-month
agreement by law in WA requires 30 ... days notice. ...
Are you certain of those periods? Laws are often sloppily drafted,
but it seems rather odd that they need to give you more notice to
change terms than to put you on the street.
For instance, are you sure one or both of those periods don't run
from the end of the current rental period, not the date notice is
given?
Does this demand from month-to-month agreement to a lease constitute
a change in terms or a potential termination -- should I get a lawyer?
Does it matter? The issue, as you explain it, is 10 days more or
less of notice. It's not clear you have any actual monetary damages,
but if you do then the first hour of a lawyer's time would exceed
them.
I've liked where I am living. I've been a model tenant. I'm just not sure
I want to live in this sudden (and unexplained shift) without knowing what
the deal is.
I think in our litigious society, many people jump right to the law
when first they ought to talk to the other party. To me this seems
like a perfect example. You've had an excellent relationship with
your landlord -- why not just ask right out, what he's trying to
accomplish? He may have some particular purpose in mind, which could
just as well be met in another way. Or he may have no purpose beyond
a vague desire to "be more businesslike", perhaps based on something
some friend has said to him.
If you like where you're living, what's your objection to signing
another one-year lease? Something doesn't add up here.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
On 12 Sep 2004, "Carol Steinel" <dukster77@hotmail.com> wrote:
I live in Washington State . . . . [as] a month-to-month
. . . [tenant since] the term of [my initial] 6/1/01 to
6/1/02 [lease] ended. * * * [The landlords today]
indicated that hey wanted me to sign a "new lease"
. . . they have not provided . . . [which] I said I
would need o see . . . and talk it over with my spouse
before I decided what to do.
* * * [C]an they demand that I sign a "new lease"?
Are you implying there you believe there is some sort of
law-signficant difference between "demand" and, say, "ask" or "discuss
whether"? If so, you might want to answer for yourself more clearly
than you here do what it is. However, bearing in mind that you say
merely that the landlords indicated" that, perhaps, they might propose
a new lease, if they draft and send you one, what anyway has been
"demand[ed]" of you?
* * * I realize that they can _terminate_ my tenancy
(and could for the past two years) for [pretty much] any
[or for no] reason with 20 days notice according to WA
state law . . . -- but [I contend that] a landlord asking for
a _change_ (not a termination) in month-to-month
agreement by law in WA requires 30 (not 20) days notice
for a change in terms. Does this demand from month-to
-month agreement to a lease constitute a change in terms
or a potential termination . . . ?
As noted, you haven't said that your landlord has "demand[ed]" (or,
for that matter, even actually asked) for anything. And even if you
are correct in what you say "WA [law] requires" for the purpose of the
landlord being entitled to law-redressable relief, if the landlord (or
the tenant) asks (or "demands") some change and if the parties do not
reach some agreement, you appear to be suggesting that, at most, the
landlords said they would prefer that you remain in the premises as
their tenant if you wish to do so.
Yet also bearing in mind what you say you "realize" (that the landlord
may terminate your lease basically at will), you might want to address
for youself also more clearly than you here do whether you are perhaps
too focused on formalistic legalisms than on practicalty.
I've liked where I am living. I've been a model tenant.
I'm just not sure I want to live in this sudden (and
unexplained shift) without knowing what the deal is.
If you want to know what the deal the landlords propose is, why
haven't you asked?
Suppose that, fully in accord with what WA law in this connection
provides, your landlord in timely and otherwise completely
law-required manner later terminates your month-to-month lease then,
if you haven't voluntarily moved (or agreed to a new lease on
different terms than your present lease), that the landlord will have
commenced a judicial eviction proceeding (which, of course, it then
would be open to you and the landlord to compromise/settle, e.g., by
your entering into a new lease on different terms than your present
lease), you might also want to answer for yourself what the
distinctions you attempt to make above have provided for you compared
with (whether or not on 10 days less notice than you contend the law
requires even if the landlord agrees that the provision to which you
refer is applicable) your negotiating a new lease (or, if you prefer,
the terms/conditions of your moving) with your landlord?
should I get a lawyer?
This, too, is an amost entirely self-answsering question, although
(based at least only on the facts as you state them in your
posting/query) you have not yet reported what (if anything) the
landlord has proposed (or hinted that it will propose) that you
probably will find unfair or otherwise objectionable.
Thanks in advance for any help,
You are correct apparently to believe that if the landlord wants you
to move but if you do not agree and if you then want to bicker about
whether the landlord has provided law-required "30 (not 20) days
notice for a change in terms" in your lease, if the landlord does not
acquiesce in your position in this respect, if the landlord wishes
(and yet you also have not said that the landlord actualy will behave
inefficiently in this connection), you can sue one another if you also
want. Meanwhile, notably absent from your posting/query is any
suggested answer by you to the question:
Apart from your quibbling about whether the landlord has "demanded"
(or "asked") for some act by you on 20- instead of 30-days notice and
from whether the landlord's so doing does not fully comply with what
you surmise your state's law to be, what will the landlord have
actually proposed (or otherwise done), _if_ the landlord were to do
more than what you say the landlord "inidcated" the landlore might do,
that you _ought_ object to compared with (as _you_ say you have
already also indicated you would prefer to do) your negotiating then
agreeing to a lease even if on terms different from your present
(essentially at-will terminable) one?
|
| |
| |
|
