Washington

The information on the page is based on the laws of the state of Washington. Landlord-tenant law is very different in different jurisdictions. Even in Washington the information on this website is not a substitute for advice about your circumstances.

Custom Search

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.

At common law a landlord was basically king. A landlord could renter property by force. This was changed by statute many moons ago.

Washington Court opinions concerning evictions have made clear for more than a century that evictions performed in accordance with Washington’s landlord-tenant statutes are the exclusive remedy for a landlord. Contract provisions that provide otherwise are not enforceable.

If the respondent by the terms of the lease had a right to terminate the lease for either of the causes named, we cannot agree that he may take the law in his own hands and by force or strategy, as is alleged in this case, evict the tenant. There is no doubt that parties to a lease may provide for a forfeiture upon non-compliance with certain conditions. Under the common law in such cases the lessor might regain possession by force. 2 Taylor, Landlord & Tenant (8th ed.), §§ 531 and 532; 2 Wood, Landlord & Tenant (2d ed.), § 537. But this rule, which makes the landlord a law unto himself, is not conducive to good business principles or to good order, and for that reason is not looked upon with favor. The statutes of this state provide a speedy, adequate, and orderly method for a landlord to obtain possession of his property upon failure of the tenant to pay rent, or upon failure to perform any other condition or covenant contained in lease. These statutes we think should be held to provide an exclusive remedy, notwithstanding an agreement permitting possession to be taken by force.

Spencer v. Commercial Co., 30 Wash. 520, 71 P. 53 (1902).

In 1934 the Washington Supreme Court again made it clear that self-help evictions are forbidden, citing Spencer. Nelson v. Swanson, 177 Wash. 187, 31 P.2d 521 (1934).

The Court of Appeals has held that a lock-out breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment and that once the landlord breaches that covenant he “himself was in default and could not retrench and take advantage of his own reentry rights; he is precluded from recovering the rents thereafter accruing….In addition, [the landlord] is liable for any damage caused by his self-help eviction”. Olin v. Goehler, 39 Wn. App. 688, 694 P.2d 1129 (1985).