Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

public official who is authorized to take acknowledged signatures has the duty to

prevent forgery and to ensure that the person signing the contract is not acting

under duress, coercion, mental incapacity, or some other incompetency. See, e.g.,

RCW 42.44.080(2), .160; Werner v. Werner, 84 Wn.2d 360, 366-67 & n.1, 526

P.2d 370 (1974); Jackson v. Tatebo, 3 Wash. 456, 462-65, 28 P. 916 (1892). A

private landlord with a direct pecuniary interest does not necessarily have such an

incentive-it is much easier to obtain a favorable agreement with an identity thief

or a person without the capacity to understand the contract's terms or implications.

A particularly dishonest landlord might even add or modify terms to the lease after

the tenant has signed it in an effort to enforce a different agreement than the one

that the tenant thought she was entering into. See Lohnes v. Meenk Lumber Co., 18

Wn.2d 251,252-54, 138 P.2d 885 (1943). With RCW 59.04.010, the legislature

determined that the risk of such unscrupulous behavior was acceptable for leases

that did not exceed one year, but not beyond that.

In light of the fact that MHL TA-controlled lots are often occupied by "the

low income, elderly, poor and infirmed," RCW 59.22.010(1)(a), the risk of an

identity thief or unscrupulous landlord fraudulently locking a tenant into an

8
             
Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, No. 90179-1
Yu, J. (dissenting)

unfavorable lease is even greater in this context than it may be in others. This risk

is all the more unacceptable given that many MHL TA leases purport to bind the

tenant for decades to come. See also RCW 59.20.090(4)(a) (If a tenant must