Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/709569.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,474 chars

allowed to charge late fees for the months that the Tenants held over and failed to pay

rent. The Tenants claim that they were not subject to late fees because they were not

late—they had already overpaid based on the unit's condition.

The relevant portion of the trial court's finding reads:

As Plaintiff acknowledges, late fees are a provision of the lease that
expired April 30, 2013, and Defendants paid rent through that date.
No evidence was offered to suggest the parties orally agreed that
the lease terms continue into a month-to-month tenancy.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim for late fees has no legal basis. For the
reasons stated below, the Court finds that Defendants are excused
from payment of rent after expiration of the lease. . . . CP at 84-85.

The lease states "[ijf any rent is not paid on or before the due date, Tenant agrees to
pay a late charge of [$]25 for each day that the same is delinquent, including the day of
payment "CP at 56. Pham correctly cites the general rule that the terms of a fixed
lease apply to the terms of a holdover tenancy, even in the absence of language in a
holdover provision. Marsh-McLennan Bldq.. Inc. v. Clapp, 96 Wn. App. 636, 644-648,
980 P.2d 311 (1999). Under this rule, the terms of the lease would have extended to the
holdover tenancy and Pham would have been entitled to charge late fees if the Tenants
had been in default.11

We find that the terms of the lease apply to the holdover tenancy. However, we