HB 2699
In CommitteeHouse
Landlord-tenant relations
Concerning landlord-tenant relations.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill strengthens tenant protections by limiting no-cause evictions, expanding required notice periods, clarifying valid reasons for eviction, and improving access to legal representation and repayment options for rent arrears. It also creates new obligations for landlords around payment methods and eviction procedures, while establishing a state-funded landlord mitigation program for certain losses.
- Landlords may no longer evict tenants without cause unless specific conditions are met—e.g., for month-to-month tenancies, a 60-day notice is required to end the tenancy without cause only if the initial lease was 6–12 months.
- New and clarified 'cause' for eviction categories, including nonpayment of rent, lease violations, illegal activity, owner/family occupancy, sale of unit, demolition, and sexual harassment—each with specific notice requirements (e.g., 30–120 days).
- Tenants facing eviction for nonpayment of rent in 'covered dwelling units' (e.g., subsidized housing or federally backed mortgages) must receive at least 30 days’ notice instead of 14 days.
- Landlords must offer reasonable repayment plans for back rent accrued during the pandemic (March 2020–September 2021), and tenants can use emergency rental assistance to reinstate tenancy after judgment.
- Tenants facing eviction gain access to court-appointed attorneys if low-income, and courts must stay evictions for up to six months if the tenant shows good cause (e.g., hardship, job loss) and agrees to a repayment plan.
- New requirement that landlords accept checks or money orders for rent and provide receipts for cash payments, plus new rules about partial rent payments not reinstating the lease.
Who is affected
- Tenants — Tenants in Washington State, especially those facing eviction or nonpayment issues, gain stronger protections against no-cause evictions, longer notice periods for certain evictions, and access to legal representation and repayment plan options.
- Landlords — Landlords must follow stricter rules for evictions, provide longer notice periods for no-cause evictions in certain cases, and accept certain forms of rent payments. They also gain access to a state-funded mitigation program for lost rent in specific situations.
- Low-income and vulnerable renters — Low-income and vulnerable tenants (e.g., seniors, people with disabilities, survivors of domestic violence) benefit from expanded access to free legal representation, extended repayment plans, and protections against immediate eviction.
- Legal aid providers and courts — Legal aid organizations and courts gain new responsibilities and funding to provide legal representation, expedited hearings, and dispute resolution services for eviction cases.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill guarantees court-appointed legal representation for low-income tenants facing eviction — a transformative protection that significantly improves due process and reduces wrongful eviction outcomes. Legal representation is strongly associated with higher rates of favorable outcomes for tenants, including stays, repayment plans, and dismissal of eviction records.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 5; Sec. 9(3)(a)-(e)The bill establishes a robust post-judgment repayment plan framework with up to six-month stays, allows use of emergency rental assistance to reinstate tenancy, and requires courts to consider hardship and COVID-related income loss — collectively providing a meaningful safety net for tenants facing temporary financial shocks and reducing homelessness risk.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 9(3)(c)(i), (e); Sec. 8The elimination of no-cause evictions for most tenancies — except in limited, time-bound scenarios — provides long-term stability for renters, especially in high-turnover markets like Seattle and Spokane, and reduces arbitrary displacement risk for vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, disabled tenants).
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), (d); Sec. 2(1)(b), (d)By requiring landlords to offer reasonable repayment plans for pandemic-era rent arrears and allowing courts to consider COVID-related hardship, the bill reduces financial stress and housing insecurity — known social determinants of poor health outcomes — particularly for low-income families and individuals with chronic conditions.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 8; Sec. 9(2), (3)(e)(i)The requirement that landlords accept checks/money orders and provide cash receipts improves transparency, reduces disputes over payment history, and protects tenants from alleged nonpayment — especially beneficial for cash-dependent workers (e.g., gig economy, hourly laborers) who may lack bank accounts or digital payment trails.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 10
Potential Concerns (5)
Landlords face significantly increased administrative and operational burdens due to expanded notice requirements (e.g., 60-day notice for no-cause evictions in certain cases), stricter documentation standards for eviction notices, and new obligations to accept checks/money orders and provide cash receipts. These requirements disproportionately impact small landlords (e.g., individuals with 1–3 units) who lack dedicated property management staff, potentially reducing rental supply or increasing rents to offset compliance costs.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(c), (d); Sec. 2(1)(c), (d)The bill bars tenants with three or more prior nonpayment notices in 12 months from seeking post-judgment reinstatement unless the prior notices were invalid — a bright-line rule that may be overly punitive for tenants who experienced temporary hardship (e.g., job loss, medical emergency) and may reduce judicial discretion to consider individual circumstances, potentially increasing homelessness risk for vulnerable populations.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 9(3)(d)The landlord mitigation program reimbursement process is contingent on court findings of tenant hardship and availability of appropriations — creating uncertainty for landlords who may wait months for reimbursement, while tenants with repeated nonpayment histories are excluded from reinstatement options, potentially increasing landlord losses and encouraging aggressive eviction strategies for landlords seeking faster resolution.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 9(3)(e)(ii), (v); Sec. 9(3)(d)The three-day cure period after a default notice on a court-ordered repayment plan is extremely short and provides no opportunity for emergency rental assistance processing, potentially trapping tenants who experience temporary income disruption in a cycle of eviction despite having access to assistance programs that require longer processing times.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 9(3)(c)(iii)(A), (B)The prohibition on partial rent payments reinstating the lease may disincentivize landlords from accepting partial payments during financial hardship, potentially worsening tenant-landlord conflict and reducing opportunities for informal resolution before formal eviction filing.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 11
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income renters, especially those with past nonpayment or eviction history, gain strong procedural protections (legal counsel, repayment plans, no-cause eviction limits) but face heightened barriers to reinstatement if they have three or more prior notices — potentially increasing risk of permanent displacement for chronically unstable tenants.
Small landlords (individuals with 1–3 units) face increased compliance costs and reduced eviction flexibility, but gain access to state-funded reimbursement for pandemic-era rent arrears. Large institutional landlords benefit less from the mitigation program (which targets specific units) but may absorb compliance costs more easily — creating a regressive distribution of burden.
Legal aid providers gain new funding and responsibility for eviction defense, expanding their role in housing stability. However, increased caseloads may strain existing resources, especially in rural counties with fewer providers — potentially reducing quality or accessibility of representation.
Courts face increased procedural complexity (e.g., repayment plan hearings, ex parte stays, mitigation program eligibility determinations), which may extend case timelines and increase administrative burden — though the bill includes funding for court-appointed attorneys to offset some costs.
State and local governments gain a tool to reduce homelessness and associated public costs (ER, shelters, social services), but must appropriate funds for legal aid, court-appointed attorneys, and the landlord mitigation program — creating upfront fiscal pressure with long-term savings.