The Leasing Hotline

A landlord must provide sufficient notice and an opportunity to cure in a notice of default to a tenant. Paschall v. Voicestream PCS III Corp., No. 50978-1-1, Wash. Ct. App., Div. One, September 22, 2003.

In September, 2000, Paschall and Voicestream entered into a long-term lease agreement for rooftop space for Voicestream's cellular telephone communications system on top of Paschall's building. Installation of the equipment occurred in 2001. After the installation, leaks developed in the roof, causing damage to the property of the building's occupants. Paschall sent a letter to Voicestream and its in-house counsel on February 1, 2002, regarding the problems with the roof. Another letter was sent on March 6, 2002. Paschall later argued that these two letters provided sufficient notice of default to Voicestream under the Washington unlawful detainer statute. Although neither letter contained the word “waste,” Paschall argued the letters were adequate notification to vacate for waste under the unlawful detainer statute. Paschall then moved to require Voicestream to show cause why an unlawful detainer trial date should not be set. On the return date at the hearing, the trial judge determined that the court did not have jurisdiction under Washington's unlawful detainer statute because Voicestream never received legally sufficient notice from Paschall and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Paschall appealed the determination of the trial court rather than filing a new notice under the statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the letters of February 1 and March 6, 2002, contained insufficient notice under the unlawful detainer statute. It considered that the letters did not contain the notice of default language or a demand to correct the default or surrender the premises. Furthermore, the letters never claimed that Voicestream was committing waste under the statute.