Landlord Demanding Notice After the Fact

[Oliver Churchill]

I'm renting a furnished rental in Washington state, month-to-month. Before signing the leese, the landlord was verbally informed I could not give extended termination notice due to the nature of my job; I assume that's why he crossed out the paragraph on "Lesee's Hold Over" which states:
"If leesee remains after natural expiration of agreement, a new tenancy from month-to-month shall be created which shall be subject to all terms and conditions hereof except that rent shall then be due and owing at ___DOLLARS___ per month and except that such tenancy shall be terminable upon 30 days written notice served by either party."

Other than that crossed-out paragraph, nothing in the leese requires giving notice to vacate. I've since informed the landlord I'm moving out in 12 days. His first response was to complain he didn't get 30 days notice! He later researched WA state law and discovered he can only demand 20 days. Now he wants to charge me another month for not giving 20 days notice - even though he crossed out the only thing remotely related to that in the leese. Am I liable for an extra month because this unscrupulous landlord didn't stipulate his notice requirement in his leese?

On a related topic, what constitutes one rental month in Washington state? Is it 30 days, or, for example, Feb 5 to March 5? Also, when does a "term" begin if not specifically noted in a leese (mine simply says "month-to-month"?). Is it the day one moves in or the day the leese is signed?

Thanks in advance for your help,
Oliver

[Mr. Knowitall]

You left before the conclusion of the initial lease term, or afterward?

[Oliver Churchill]

Sorry for leaving this out:
I am still in the unit. The initial lease term (I assume) ends March 2 and I'm leaving March 9.

The landlord's initial reaction to my notice was to say he expected 30 days notice. In this same conversation he said he'd be satisfied if I paid for the few extra days beyond the lease term, stating I also owed for the entire month of Feb, even though I didn't sign the lease until Feb 2, and didn't move in till Feb 4. I emailed him the next day asking why he was charging me for Feb 1 - 3. He emailed a response a few days later stating I would have to pay for the entire month of March since I didn't give 20 days notice per state law.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Normally the following applies:

The law says the tenant is liable for rent for the lesser of: 30 days from the day the next rent is due, or 30 days from the day the landlord learns the tenant has moved out. However, the landlord has a duty to try and find a new renter. If the dwelling is rented before the end of the 30 days, the former tenant must pay only until the new tenant begins paying rent.

Your situation doesn't seem to fall squarely under that provision, as you haven't moved out and you did give notice, albeit notice that the landlord contends is inadequate. (That provision seems to be about a tenant who gives no notice.) Normally, as you had a one year lease (apparently with no automatic renewal absent your giving of notice), your obligation would end at the conclusion of the lease. Had you stayed and paid rent monthly you would have become a month-to-month tenant. Your situation is complicated by the fact that you would be more of a holdover tenant, but you would still owe rent past the conclusion of the lease term.

Based upon what you have said, if the lease was dated Feb. 2 and the premises were available on that date, (or possibly if the lease specified a start or move-in date of Feb 1), the lease started on that date. As you are staying past the conclusion of the lease, it would appear that you would owe twenty days rent from the day you gave notice. As you have not moved out, even if your prior notice was somehow "improper" it would seem that you would still be able to give proper notice and thus avoid paying more than 20 days rent. You can review the state statutes to see if you can find a more specific provision which applies to your situation.