Addendum contradicts main contract

[sharkme]

My State: WA

Issue:
When I signed my lease for my current apartment it came with a bunch of addendums that were signed at the same time as the main contract.
These addendums describe policies like: No smoking, how rent is to be paid, etc ....
One amendum describes that a notice of 30 days is required for terminating month-to-month tenancy.
However the "main" contract specifies a notice of 20 days is required for terminating the month-to-month tenancy. They both refer to the same thing.
There is no cross-reference between the two different specified periods, they appear independently, "20 days" in the main contract and "30 days" in the addendum.

Q: Which one of these two is likely to be enforced by a court if it gets to that ?

Thanks!

 

[adjusterjack]

The standard is 30 days. The statutory requirement is 30 days:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.04.020

The purpose of an addendum is generally to modify a contract.

I'd lean toward a court enforcing the 30 day notice requirement.

And even if you or anybody else thinks otherwise, a wise person would give 30 days notice and avoid the possibility of losing one's deposit and/or ending up in court.

 

[reenzz]

The standard is 30 days. The statutory requirement is 30 days:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.04.020

The purpose of an addendum is generally to modify a contract.

I'd lean toward a court enforcing the 30 day notice requirement.

And even if you or anybody else thinks otherwise, a wise person would give 30 days notice and avoid the possibility of losing one's deposit and/or ending up in court.

This statute seems to contradict the statute you provided.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.200

 

[Taxing Matters]

This statute seems to contradict the statute you provided.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.18.200

Indeed, but the statutes provide a rule that resolves the conflict. The one you linked with the 20 day rule applies to tenancies under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act, the rule that AdjusterJack linked applies to all other tenancies (e.g. commercial tenancies, etc). See RCW 59.04.900.

 

[sharkme]

Indeed this is a residential contract and the 20 day minimum applies.

The thing that I was wondering about is:

The purpose of an addendum is generally to modify a contract.

I absolutely understand and agree for addendums signed after the contract is made - I don't think anyone would disagree on this.
BUT when the addendum is actually part of the main contract and signed at the same time, does this still apply ?
The way I see it is this would be viewed more as an attempt to confuse the signing party about the terms of the contract.
More obvious example: Big bold font on 1st page of contract saying "Rent: $1000" Then small addendum on page 76 in tiny font saying "Actually Rent is $5000". If $5000 rent would be enforceable in this scenario - would be very sad.

Would that hold up in court ? The other argument is that the person that messed up (the one who created the contradictory contract) is the one who should be disadvantaged by the mistake.

And even if you or anybody else thinks otherwise, a wise person would give 30 days notice and avoid the possibility of losing one's deposit and/or ending up in court.

This is not possible in that 10-day gap though .

 

[justalayman]

Am addendum is still considered a modification to a contract.

But

If there is a dispute, you ask a court to make the determination.


I would suggest the last statement made is the enforceable statement.

 

[FarmerJ]

If your LL had written into the same contract twenty days and in a different place 30 days to end a month to month tenancy then it would be super easy to argue that the lease was written to allow 20 days even if the LL made a mistake and had intended for it to be a 30 day notice. BUT since the LL used a addendum rather than just changing the lease forms used to reflect all changes I don't see any room for a tenant to argue successfully to use a 20 day notice with no penalty to them.

 

[adjusterjack]

BUT when the addendum is actually part of the main contract and signed at the same time, does this still apply ?
The way I see it is this would be viewed more as an attempt to confuse the signing party about the terms of the contract.
More obvious example: Big bold font on 1st page of contract saying "Rent: $1000" Then small addendum on page 76 in tiny font saying "Actually Rent is $5000". If $5000 rent would be enforceable in this scenario - would be very sad.

Would that hold up in court ?

You end up in court if you don't read, understand, and resolve the issue BEFORE you sign.

 

[Stephen1]

Ask the LL which clause he believes is controlling and ask him to send you something in writing stating that. This might be good to do while you are still on good terms with the LL.

 

[adjusterjack]

Ask the LL which clause he believes is controlling and ask him to send you something in writing stating that. This might be good to do while you are still on good terms with the LL.

Excellent idea to get it resolved before the SHTF.

 

[LdiJ]

I have to comment that its a really lazy landlord (or perhaps miserly landlord) who continues to use a lease that requires an addendum or addendums with new renters. Why in the world the landlord hasn't just re-written the lease to make all of the changes is beyond me.