Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in Washington

the horror continues

Our lease expired in September 2007. The only thing we got was a ''lease renewal form'' and so decided not to sign a new lease in September for another year - unless we were given a copy of the ''real'' lease. We are currently living month-to-month and have received a letter from our landlords giving us 20 days to move out, which is fine. They want us to remove all the belongings in the house from previous tenants - and after finally coughing up a real, original lease - turns out it was signed up in 1991. I don't know if it's still valid. The ''lease renewal'' forms say the following: ''This agreement made this 29th day in September 2007 between *** and *** ***** and those listed below is an addendum to those agreements dated August 2006 and 6-11-1994.

1. lease premises - *** *** ***

2. Term: 1 year beginning 9-01-07 and ending 8-31-08

3. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.

I can't get ahold of the Tenant's Union and I want to know if I am legally responsible for cleaning out a house which has been lived in by tens of people over the course of 16 years. I feel that it is unfair to expect the house to be in the same condition (minus wear and tear, but who decides what normal wear and tear is?) after so long.


Asked on 11/14/07, 7:04 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Elizabeth Powell ELizabeth Powell PS Inc

Re: the horror continues

Hello; This is very similar to a question I answered a few days ago. Glad to hear that you got a copy of the lease. The lease expired in 1992 and you have been a month to month tenant ever since.

The lease needs to have a walk through statement attached IF the landlord took a deposit. If there is no walk through statement attached, then there is no way to prove the condition of the premises at the beginning of the lease, and thus no way to determine if damage has been done.

You are not responsible for "normal wear and tear". E.g., you can wear out a carpet over 12 years, but if you spill paint on a new carpet, arguably that is damage, not wear and tear.

It is an inuitive distinction, but no court is going to find you personally responsible for normal wear and tear if the landlord hasn't inspected and demanded maintenance (which would be the landlord's responsibility anyway).

Normal wear and tear means light bulbs wear out. You are not responsible for replacing them. Appiances quit working over sixteen years. Walls need re painting - that is normal wear and tear.

So, sounds as though you have the option to re-up the lease for another year, or to move out. Both are reasonable options.

I'd do your level best to remove your property. Property abandoned by previous tenants is not your problem. If that makes it tough to clean, that isn't your issue, it is your landlord's problem for not doing a better job managing the house.

Hope this helps. Elizabeth Powell

Read more
Answered on 11/14/07, 10:35 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in Washington