Owner's Letters Didn't Satisfy Notice Requirement

November 1, 2003

A telecom company signed a lease for rooftop space for its equipment. After the tenant's equipment was installed, the roof began to leak. The owner sent the tenant a letter expressing his concerns about the leaks and other lease-related issues. About a month later, the owner sent the tenant a second letter, further detailing his concerns and giving the tenant 30 days to vacate the space. But the tenant refused to do so. The owner then sued to evict the tenant.

A telecom company signed a lease for rooftop space for its equipment. After the tenant's equipment was installed, the roof began to leak. The owner sent the tenant a letter expressing his concerns about the leaks and other lease-related issues. About a month later, the owner sent the tenant a second letter, further detailing his concerns and giving the tenant 30 days to vacate the space. But the tenant refused to do so. The owner then sued to evict the tenant.

A Washington appeals court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the owner's letters didn't satisfy the state's notice requirements. The court said that before an owner can evict a tenant, the owner must serve it with notice explaining the default and giving it an opportunity to cure—that is, fix—the default to avoid eviction. Since neither of the owner's letters satisfied these require- ments, the tenant was never given proper notice and couldn't be evicted, the court said [Paschall v. Voicestream PCS III Corp.].

More like this