Rina Khanna and Kumar Vijay (hereinafter, "Khanna") owned residential real property in Washington, which they leased to Alex and Danni Walker ("Walker"). The 18-month term lease began in 2010. After the term expired, Walker continued to rent the premises on a month-to-month basis.
Khanna terminated the lease on May 30, 2017, but Walker continued to occupy the premises without paying rent until April 2019.
In June 2019, Khanna filed an action to recover $66,466.70 in unpaid rent, late charges, and interest (not an unlawful detainer action). The parties reached an agreement for Walker to pay a lesser sum. However, Walker ended up requesting extensions multiple times, during which time the Walkers' attorney withdrew. Khanna asked the court for the entire rent amount. Walker continued to ask the court for extensions, usually either claiming being out of the area or needing to get a new attorney.
Finally, the court entered judgment for Khanna and against Walker for the entire $66,466.70, plus late fees and prejudgment interest. Walker appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. First, it held the trial court acted within its discretion allowing Walker chances to respond timely to any motions. Second, it held Walker did not present good reason to continue the matter any further, additionally commenting Walker had counsel through October 2019 and the attorney only withdrew after Walker repeatedly failed to fulfill prior settlement terms.
Finally, the court upheld the 12% prejudgment interest because Walker knew about the prejudgment interest and even signed a confession of judgment that stated they would be on the hook for that.
_________________________
Again, while not a true unlawful detainer case because the Walkers had already vacated the premises, this case had similarities to ones I had during my time practicing.
For some reason, the landlords here allowed the tenants to stay rent-free for nearly two years. Whether it was out of pity or the tenants providing a good story, Khanna could have potentially saved themselves a few years of legal headaches by filing an unlawful detainer action after providing any required notices and formally ending the lease. If the landlords had collected a security deposit, that could have significantly offset any monies owed had a UD action been filed promptly.
The other question is whether Khanna will actually even see any of the $66,466.70 from this case. Assuming the former tenants were not judgment-proof, it might take even more legal fees to garnish wages, bank accounts, and other assets.
I believe a good landlord attorney should be upfront to his/her client about the entire scenario from the start, including the real chance that collecting any judgment from the former tenant may not be realized. The facts of this case illustrate how that can easily happen.
