Lease not notarized, is that considered fraudulent?

[jespur]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington State

In WA state the statute of frauds (and the Landlord/Tenant act) says a lease over 1 yr must be notarized to be valid. I have reviewed court decisions where a tenant, after 1 yr, would try to get out of the their (ex.) 2 yr (not notarized) lease based on this statute. The courts, sometimes after an appeal, would usually rule in favor of the landlord because in these cases the landlord was not aware of the statute until the tenant tried to get out of the lease and it was clear the tenant knew and agreed to the terms of the lease when they signed it so the statute was ignored to prevent an injustice using promissory estoppel, or part performance as grounds to rule in favor of the landlord.
My question is if it could be proven that a landlord was aware of this statute and still gave tenants a lease over 1 yr without having it notarized, wouldn't that be considered fraudulent?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington State

In WA state the statute of frauds (and the Landlord/Tenant act) says a lease over 1 yr must be notarized to be valid. I have reviewed court decisions where a tenant, after 1 yr, would try to get out of the their (ex.) 2 yr (not notarized) lease based on this statute. The courts, sometimes after an appeal, would usually rule in favor of the landlord because in these cases the landlord was not aware of the statute until the tenant tried to get out of the lease and it was clear the tenant knew and agreed to the terms of the lease when they signed it so the statute was ignored to prevent an injustice using promissory estoppel, or part performance as grounds to rule in favor of the landlord.
My question is if it could be proven that a landlord was aware of this statute and still gave tenants a lease over 1 yr without having it notarized, wouldn't that be considered fraudulent?

No, it *may* be considered an invalid lease though...

 

[atomizer]

The lease would NOT be invalid, but you would not be bound to any terms exceeding one year.

 

[Zigner]

The lease would NOT be invalid, but you would not be bound to any terms exceeding one year.

Why don't you post some sort of cite...


Assume: Term: This lease shall run for 2 years from the date of signing.

In court:

LL: Judge, my tenant left after 6 months and their lease is for 2 years.

Tenant: Judge, the Term of the lease is an invalid provision as the law requires any leases in excess of one year to be notarized.

Judge: I find that the term of the lease is invalid, as such, this agreement shall revert to a month-to-month agreement, per state law.

 

[atomizer]

Does a Lease Need to be Notarized or Recorded?
PostDateIcon March 8th, 2009 | PostAuthorIcon Author: Washington Landlord Attorney

Generally, no.

But, both residential and non-residential leases must be notarized and contain a legal description if the term exceeds a year.[1] The recording statute defines a lease of over two years as a conveyance.[2]

In general an unacknowledged lease for a term exceeding 1 year is effective only as an oral lease and results in a tenancy from month to month.[3] Courts may under the doctrine of part performance enforce a lease that does not satisfy the statute of frauds if equity and justice so require.[4]

It should be noted that the statute of frauds (rule requiring written, notarized lease and a legal description) affects the validity of the lease between the parties whereas a failure to record does not invalidate a lease or other instrument as to the parties who entered into it. But, a bona fide purchaser or renter without actual notice would not be bound by an unrecorded instrument.[5]

That would require too much work on my part.
But, maybe this will help you.