- 14 -
agree with respondent that the parol evidence rule prevents
petitioners from using the testimony to expand the scope of the
written leases. We nevertheless conclude that the disputed
testimony is admissible on the question of the existence of a
separate oral lease, and we overrule respondent’s objection.
B. The Alleged Oral Lease
To overcome the fact that the written leases did not
encompass the Dobbe residence, petitioners contended at trial
that there was also an oral lease by which Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe
leased their residence to Holland America during 1993 and prior
years. The only proof in support of petitioners’ contention,
however, was the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe and their
accountant that Mr. and Mrs. Dobbe intended to lease the
residence to Holland America. Petitioners conceded at trial that
no additional rent was paid by Holland America for the residence
and offered no testimony whatsoever regarding the other terms and
conditions normally included in a valid and enforceable lease.
Under Washington State law, a valid lease must identify the
property leased, the parties to the lease, and the terms and
conditions of the lease, including the rent or other
consideration paid or to be paid for the leasehold interest. See
Emrich v. Connell, 716 P.2d 863, 867 (Wash. 1986). Moreover,
Washington State’s statute of frauds requires that an agreement
to lease for more than 1 year be in writing. See Family Med.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011