The information on this page regards landlord-tenant law only in the state of Washington. Even for Washington, while we strive to keep the content of this website current, the law changes and the content of this page may not be up to date. Also, the information is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice about your circumstances.

A successful bidder at a trustee’s sale (non-judicial foreclosure) may take possession of the property 20 after the sale. RCW 61.24.060. No unlawful detainer notice is required for the new owner to evict the previous owners after the 20 period expires. Savings Bank v. Mink, 49 Wn. App. 204, 741 P.2d 1043 (1987).

However, new laws require notice to tenants.  Under a new federal law tenants may stay for the remainder of an unexpired lease.  Month-to-month tenants must be given 90 days notice.  A new Washington law requires 60 days notie to evict tenants after foreclosure. 

RCW 61.24.060 provides that the purchaser has the right of possession 20 days after the sale and has the right to the summary proceedings of RCW 59.12, the unlawful detainer (i.e. eviction) statute. Under the eviction statute notice to quit the premises, where required, is a jurisdictional prerequisite. RCW 59.12.030 lists six situations in which a person in possession may be evicted and what notice is required for each.

The court of Appeals held that, although RCW 61.24.060 fails to specify under which provision of the eviction statute the buyer at foreclosure may proceed, the closest situation was that of a hold-over tenant. Under the eviction statute a landowner may evict anyone who remains in possession after the expiration of a lease term without serving a pre-litigation eviction notice. The court reasoned that the 20-day period was analogous to a lease term for the purposes of the eviction statute. The court further reasoned that the intention of the legislature, to avoid costly, time-consuming judicial foreclosure proceedings in nonjudicial foreclosure, and to provide expeditious, summary proceedings for the removal of persons in the possession of the property of another under the eviction statute, were best realized under this analysis.

Also, the competing legislative intent of providing an adequate opportunity [or notice] for interested parties to prevent wrongful foreclosure was not prejudiced because the defendant in the eviction action received detailed notices and provides opportunities to cure pursuant to the trustee sale statute. Therefore, the court held no notice was required before serving the previous owner with the eviction lawsuit.