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

999 chars

¶31 Indigo further asserts that “termination” is a term of art that refers only to a landlord’s unilateral decision not to renew a lease or to extend a month-to-month tenancy. At the hearing on Wadsworth’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court appeared to accept this argument, noting that Indigo’s action constituted “a sound unlawful detainer [,] not a basis for termination as contemplated by the addendum.” However, this interpretation of the term “termination” does not appear anywhere in the parties’ lease and is contradicted by the express terms of federal law. The federal statute explicitly provides that the lease “shall provide that during the term of the lease, the owner shall not terminate the tenancy except for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of the lease.” 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7)(C) (emphasis added).8 The HUD regulations likewise restrict the landlord’s discretion to terminate the tenancy “[d]uring the term of the lease.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(a).

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text