Indigo Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wash. App. 412 (2012)

Citation: Indigo Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wash. App. 412 (2012)
Parent Document: Indigo Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wash. App. 412 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2012-07-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4951771/indigo-real-estate-services-inc... ↗

Full Text

1,056 chars

¶23 In general, the tenant’s breach of any covenant is ground for notice to comply or vacate. 17 William B. Stoebuck & John W. Weaver, Washington Practice: Real Estate: Property Law § 6.80, at 447-48 (2d ed. 2004). However, “[1] eases are contracts, as well as conveyances.” Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Westlake Park Assocs., 42 Wn. App. 269, 272, 711 P.2d 361 (1985). It is axiomatic that the rights *422and obligations of the parties to a contract are defined by the provisions of that document. Consequently, where a lease provides the tenant with greater protection than he or she would receive under the unlawful detainer statute, the landlord must comply with the lease in any eviction action. Cmty. Invs., Ltd. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 36 Wn. App. 34, 36-37, 671 P.2d 289 (1983). Thus, in Community Investments, we determined that where the parties’ lease contained a provision requiring that a tenant be allowed 20 days to cure a default (and not the 10 days required by the statute), the provisions of the lease must prevail. 36 Wn. App. at 36-37.

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text