Re: Multiple tenants - Landlord Forum thread 354924

Re: Multiple tenants by Anonymous on November 6, 2017 @01:50

I see a lot of problems with such a lease clause that could lead to financial issues for the landlord.

Not only does the possibility of the lease clause being in violation of Washington State Fair Housing Regulations, it also seems to violate both Federal and Washington State law concerning termination under the SCRA when only one tenant is moving out due to military orders. That tenant is due a settlement of the security deposit within 14 days of termination of the lease, whether or not any other tenants remain. The landlord cannot hold on to the security deposit until all occupants vacate.

The same could be said under the States Domestic Violence act, where the landlord is required to settle the security deposit within 14 days of the termination of the lease due to domestic violence, even if any other tenants remain in the rental. The landlord cannot hold on to the security deposit until all occupants vacate.

It also would not apply if the tenancy is month to month and only one co-tenant moved out while any other ones remained. The landlord would be required to settle the security deposit with the departing tenant.

A landlord could not hold on to the security deposit until all tenants vacated under such examples and nothing would require the approval of the landlord in writing. The requirement that a "release" requires written authority and a move-out inspection is not enforceable as it preceives to waive the tenants right to terminate a lease or rental agreement or face not being released. Nothing in Washington State law requires such a condition getting the security deposit returned. In fact, such conditions are in violation of the State security deposit laws.

Illegal lease clauses can allow the tenant to sue for damages and since the lease clause discriminates against single, divorce and widowed applicants or tenants, it violates Washington Fair Housing Law.

Lawyer written or not, it's a very risky and on it's face, a very discriminatory lease clause that no one should be using.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]