• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

When is increase in rent effective?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Stephen1

Member
What is the name of your state? Washington State
What do you think? May I start the new rent amount May 1st or June 1st.

Situation: 2 tenants currently month-to-month. Tenant A sent an email today saying she is leaving, that tenant B will be staying and covering the rent. As I read RCW 59.18.200 that notice would be effective May 1st (i.e. termination is April 30th).

What I want to do: new agreement w/tenant B starting May 1st. New agreement will have higher rent.

Question is whether this is appropriate for notice the change in rent amount. State law (RCW 59.18.140) requires 60 days notice but I'm not sure whether what I am doing would be an increase in rent (60 days notice) or a new lease after the "notice of twenty days or more, preceding the end of any of the months or periods of tenancy, given by either party to the other."

The alternative is a new agreement starting May 1st. May is at the old rent amount and the new amount starts June 1st.
 


Stephen1

Member
I would go with June 1st.
That's the direction I'm leaning but the new agreement would be cleaner with only one amount listed for the rent. I could also require tenant B to sign a document acknowledging that tenant is off the agreement effective the end of April then present a new lease to start in June with the new rent amount.

I'm thinking, when the Legislature considers various changes to the LL/T Act they think the wording in the law seems straight forward but when you or I attempt to apply those changes to real life situations then sometimes it isn't nearly as straight forward.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
In California (just for reference), this situation would require a 60 day notice, assuming a tenancy of >1 year. I haven't looked at WA law, as I was going more along the lines of "better safe than sorry".
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
Question is whether this is appropriate for notice the change in rent amount. State law (RCW 59.18.140) requires 60 days notice but I'm not sure whether what I am doing would be an increase in rent (60 days notice) or a new lease after the "notice of twenty days or more, preceding the end of any of the months or periods of tenancy, given by either party to the other."
It's 60 days notice for a rent increase. You're not terminating Tenant B's tenancy. You intend to keep him but at a higher rent. That's a rent increase. 59.18.200 doesn't apply. 59.18.140 applies.

New rent to be effective June 1.
 

FarmerJ

Senior Member
I don't understand why a tenant would not understand in a new lease that it can say from May first to May 31 the rent will be X ( old amount ) and June first it will be (new amount) for the next 11 months unless you want to make the new lease a 13 month lease .
 

zddoodah

Active Member
So...let me restate what I think is happening.

On 3/13, Tenant A sends email to LL to terminate the tenancy only as to Tenant A. It's not clear from your post whether the notice states an effective date, but there is no reason to believe it would become effective any later than 4/30.

You want a new lease with Tenant B, who apparently is staying, for increased rent (or you want to raise the rent under the existing lease). You want this increase to take effect as soon as possible. Under RCW 59.18.140(3)(a), an increase under the existing lease cannot be effective any earlier than 60 days after you give notice.

One other observation: It is possible, depending on the terms of the lease, that a notice from only one of the tenants is ineffective and that it's an all or nothing proposition. Accordingly, one option for you might be to contact both tenants and propose a new lease only between you and Tenant B for $X per month, to start on 5/1, with Tenant A being released from all obligations under the lease as of 11:59:59 p.m. on 4/30.

Finally, and FWIW, IMO, RCW 59.18.200(1)(a) is ambiguous but absolutely does not compel the conclusion that a termination notice may only be effective as of the end of a month (which isn't to say there might not be case law that interprets it that say, but I'm not going to research case law).
 

Stephen1

Member
Finally, and FWIW, IMO, RCW 59.18.200(1)(a) is ambiguous but absolutely does not compel the conclusion that a termination notice may only be effective as of the end of a month (which isn't to say there might not be case law that interprets it that say, but I'm not going to research case law).
I can say that (1) when I've attended sessions with the state LL Assn or had discussions with other LLs the 20 days has been understood to be before the end of the month and (2) the latest sample lease from the state LL Assn says:
"20-Days written notice is required and means at the end of a specific lease or month to month period, termination shall be by written notice of at least 20 days, preceding the end (last day) of any such monthly rental period, given by either party to the other. That means notice must not simply be 20 calendar days ending any day other than the last day of a rental period but must include BOTH 20 days AND end on the LAST day of a rental or lease period. If full and proper notice is not given then one additional month’s rent is allowed by law."
So, while I don't know what the case law says it appears that tenants haven't always understood it. These current tenants pre-date the state LL Assn sample lease.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top