increases to annually and it fails to set forth the amount of any rent increase or the formula upon
which the rent increase will be calculated. Therefore, because the rental agreement fails to limit
the frequency of rent increases and fails to set forth the specific amount of increase or a formula
upon which to calculate an increase, the provision in Lane’s rental agreement allowing for rent
increases violates former RCW 59.20.060(2)(c) and is unenforceable. See Jordan v. Nationstar
Mortg., LLC, 185 Wn.2d 876, 883, 374 P.3d 1195 (2016); W. Plaza, LLC, 180 Wn. App. at 23.
Because the provision regarding rent increases in Lane’s rental agreement is unenforceable,
TST cannot rely on that provision to justify its interim rent increases. TST could only increase
10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 53352-9-II
Lane’s rent at the expiration of his rental term under former RCW 59.20.090(2). The ALJ properly
granted summary judgment.
2. Rent Increases Under Gosney’s, Simoni’s, and Stickley’s Implied Agreements
TST argues that because implied rental agreements for Gosney, Simoni, and Stickley were
for a duration of one year, midterm rent increases were not prohibited. However, because these
arguments are based on TST’s interpretation of former RCW 59.20.090(2), which we have rejected
above, we disagree.
Where a mobile home space does not have a written rental agreement, the agreement is
considered an “implied rental agreement” for a period of one year, renewed automatically for one
year. Gillette, 68 Wn. App. at 842. Further, a rental agreement exists where tenants live in a
mobile park and provide rent to the landlord while using the mobile park based on rules provided