Right to quiet enjoyment

[seamus6654]

What is the name of your state? WA, King County

Landlords must sell the home we are living in due to "financial hardship". We signed a year long lease in October 2004. Landlords put up a for sale sign and have been showing our house since early June (3-4 hour open houses on the weekends per month; 3 per month and numerous 15 minute showings throughout the week). They have always given us 24 hours noticeto do so, but no CHOICE or OPTIONS even after writing 2 letters requesting a choice in scheduling open houses. The lease says they can show or put up a sign in the last 30 days of our lease. All of this has serious infringed upon on our enjoyment of the property(including the constant flow of traffic in front of the house picking up flyers, looking in our windows, and sometimes knocking on the door to request a viewing). What can we do?

 

[ms_holli]

tell them

I would tell your landlords that you have an issue and restate the contract, tell them even though you only have left x many weeks, it's still your place and your still paying rent for it, I would explain it to them before taking any legal action, but if it clearly states that in the contract then they have to follow it

 

[ENASNI]

sounds horrible

Well... not your fault, but I wish that people would search the forums first before asking their questions. *sigh*
Maybe you will get your answer from this post.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=262670

Or try booby traps... harmless ones of course, I would never promote violence.

 

[longneck]

The lease says they can show or put up a sign in the last 30 days of our lease.

reread your lease carefully. the 30 days for the sign probably refers to a "for rent" sign, not a "for sale" sign. those are two completely different things.

 

[seamus6654]

Just did...

It clearly states ...during the last 30 days of this lease, lessor shall have the privilege of displaying the usual "for sale", "for rent", or "vacancy" signs and of showing property to prospective purchasers or tenants.

Why would that make a difference though?

 

[longneck]

because selling a property with a lease already in force (in theory) has no effect on the tenant. when the property is sold, the new owner must honor the existing lease.

that's is not (as) true in the case of looking for a new renter.

 

[ENASNI]

because selling a property with a lease already in force (in theory) has no effect on the tenant. when the property is sold, the new owner must honor the existing lease.

that's is not (as) true in the case of looking for a new renter.

My dear friend whom I hope never gets whiplash... why does this matter... You are confusing the blonde here?

 

[seamus6654]

I know that my lease is still in effect if the house is sold; my concerns aren't about a possible lease termination, they are about the right to quiet enjoyment. Having a sign posted outside of the house 4 months before the lease naturally terminates has been a source of aggravation almost daily. The house is located in a very desirable location in a lakeside community. There is a lot of foot traffic on my street. This is on top of the multiple open houses that force my husband and I out of our home on weekends and during the week. I guess I just feel that my rights are being ignored. It is not my concern nor is it any of my business that my landlords are having financial difficulty; they should have only had us sign a month to month lease. Why should I be inconvenienced because they want to collect $1500 a month rent from us while actively dispalcing us whenever they feel like it?

 

[ENASNI]

Write him a letter and give him this nice bit from your state's laws.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=59.18.150&fuseaction=section
5) The landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant. Except in the case of emergency or if it is impracticable to do so, the landlord shall give the tenant at least two days' notice of his or her intent to enter and shall enter only at reasonable times. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter the dwelling unit at a specified time where the landlord has given at least one day's notice of intent to enter to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers or tenants. A landlord shall not unreasonably interfere with a tenant's enjoyment of the rented dwelling unit by excessively exhibiting the dwelling unit.

(6) The landlord has no other right of access except by court order, arbitrator or by consent of the tenant.

(7) A landlord or tenant who continues to violate the rights of the tenant or landlord with respect to the duties imposed on the other as set forth in this section after being served with one written notification alleging in good faith violations of this section listing the date and time of the violation shall be liable for up to one hundred dollars for each violation after receipt of the notice. The prevailing landlord or tenant may recover costs of the suit or arbitration under this section, and may also recover reasonable attorneys' fees.

 

[seamus6654]

Thanks, that's helpful. I just think that WA state's tenant-landlord laws are written ambiguously. The landlords are also first timers and they've chosen to be mostly passive aggressive in dealing with this and not addressing any of our previous written requests. I just want to be left alone until at least September...

 

[ENASNI]

Of course you do, See if that $100.00 each infraction scares them into stopping the traffic.

Also the lease in totally on your side.
Good Luck.

 

[seamus6654]

Thanks for your time and help.

 

[longneck]

My dear friend whom I hope never gets whiplash... why does this matter... You are confusing the blonde here?

wow, i just realized how much info i left out of my explaination. here goes again.

there is no law that a LL can not sell a house while there is an active lease agreement. a LL is be able to sell their property at any time because the new LL has to honor any existing lease agreements. placing a restriction on a "for sale" sign is stupid because you would never be able to advertise that the house is for sale to another LL.

since the tenant has the right to peaceful enjoyment, a restriction on a "for rent" sign makes sense. why should a LL be allowed to put up a "for rent" sign 6 months in to a 12 month lease? that potentially infringes on a tenant's right to peaceful enjoyment.

in summary, a LL would be insane to limit "for sale" signs because it limits their ability to sell a house to a new LL. a restriction on "for rent" signs makes sense to protect the tenant.

that is why i find a clause in the lease prohibiting "for sale" signs until the final 30 days of the lease hard to swallow.

 

[ENASNI]

I got ya giraffe me friend, but seamus told us that they were newbies in the landlord business... I guess they didn't think it through when they wrote the lease.

So this thing needs to go back in their garage until the last thirty days.

See ya around.

 

[seamus6654]

The lease I signed is from an online form site: socrates.com, residential lease.
Item 24 is the "Display of Signs". The landlord is able to handwrite in the last number of days of the lease he is able to place a sign for sale, rent, vacancy on the property. He wrote in "30 days" himself. They are new landlords and originally they told us they bought our property as a "teardown" and ideally would have liked us to stay for multiple years until they were ready to build on it. All of this changed of course after they fell upon financial hardships. We are not standing in the way of them selling or showing the place (as evidenced by the many many open houses and drop-ins) however, we just want to be treated fairly and respectfully according to the lease. We would have never signed a year long lease and paid them 1500/month if we knew that from June until October we would be inconvenienced so often. I realize they weren't able to predict the future, but that shouldn't mean that we lose our right to quiet enjoyment and pay for their hardshipds.