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?
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?