Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Housing Resource Group v. Price, 958 P.2d 327 (1998)

Citation
Housing Resource Group v. Price, 958 P.2d 327 (1998)
Parent Document
Housing Resource Group v. Price, 958 P.2d 327 (1998)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1998-06-23

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text

1,143 chars
Interpretation of the regulation presents a question of law.[2] In reviewing the plain language of the regulation,[3] section 982.309(e)(2) is limited to a landlord's offer of a new lease. To fall within this section, Price must show that HRG made an offer of a new lease. If HRG made such an offer, the regulation required it to provide Price 60 days written notice before the beginning date of the proposed new lease term. However, Price has not pointed to any evidence in the record showing that HRG made an offer of a new lease. Rather, he appears to argue that his rent increase constituted a new lease. But, he has failed to provide any authority to support the position that his increased rent constituted a new lease. Indeed, the court in District of Columbia v. Suydam[4] reached the opposite conclusion. There, the court held that a change in rent, but otherwise leaving the terms of the previous subsidized housing lease unchanged, did not constitute a new lease, and thereby operate as a surrender of an existing tenancy, so as to bar the landlord from evicting the tenant based on the failure to pay rent under the prior lease.[5]