SB 6139
In CommitteeSenate
Rental payments
Concerning partial rental payments and rental payment methods of an unlawful detainer action or issuance of a writ of restitution.
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 clarifies how landlords must accept rent payments and how partial payments affect eviction cases. It requires landlords to accept common payment methods (with limited exceptions), provide receipts, and ensures that making or accepting partial rent payments does not automatically stop an eviction or reset deadlines.
- Landlords must accept personal checks, cashier’s checks, or money orders for rent, unless the tenant’s personal check has bounced or been closed within the prior 9 months.
- Landlords must allow tenants to mail rent payments unless they provide an accessible on-site payment location.
- Landlords may refuse cash, but must give a receipt if they accept it.
- Landlords must provide a written receipt for any rent payment (not just cash) if the tenant requests one.
- If rent is late, landlords must keep offering payment methods previously accepted or agreed upon in the lease, unless prohibited by this law.
- Partial rent payments during an eviction case do not restart the lease or stop the eviction process, and do not extend the 5-court-day deadline to pay in full under state law.
Who is affected
- Tenants — Tenants who make rental payments, especially those who pay with checks, money orders, or cash, and those who may be behind on rent and considering or already making partial payments.
- Landlords — Property owners and property management companies who collect rent and may face legal proceedings when tenants fall behind on payments.
- Judicial system / Legal professionals — Courts and legal professionals handling eviction cases, as the bill clarifies how partial payments affect unlawful detainer proceedings.
- Housing support agencies — Local housing agencies and tenant-landlord mediation programs that assist with rental disputes and eviction prevention.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating acceptance of personal, cashier’s, and money order payments—except for recent bounced checks—ensures tenants with limited banking access (e.g., unbanked or underbanked households) can pay rent without discrimination, reducing risk of eviction over technical payment issues.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Requiring written receipts for all payments (not just cash) upon tenant request creates a verifiable record that protects tenants in disputes over payment history, reducing evidentiary imbalances in eviction cases where landlords may claim nonpayment.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3)Clarifying that partial payments do not reinstate the lease prevents landlords from using ambiguous payment patterns to delay evictions strategically while accumulating arrears—this promotes transparency and discourages deceptive practices where landlords accept partial payments while proceeding with eviction.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Allowing mail-in rent payments unless an accessible on-site option is provided supports tenants with mobility limitations, disabilities, or those in rural areas with limited access to in-person payment locations—enhancing equity in payment access.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)The bill may reduce unlawful detainer filings by encouraging earlier resolution of payment disputes through clearer rules, easing burden on courts and housing agencies—though this benefit is modest and depends on voluntary compliance before filing.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact
Potential Concerns (3)
Landlords may refuse cash payments, which disproportionately burdens tenants without bank accounts or access to checks—estimated at 7% of Washington households (U.S. Census 2022)—many of whom are low-income, elderly, or immigrant communities. This reduces payment flexibility for vulnerable renters who rely on cash to avoid banking fees or maintain privacy.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)The explicit rule that partial payments do not stop evictions or extend the 5-day cure period may pressure tenants to make full payment quickly, increasing risk of displacement for those facing temporary income shocks—especially since many cannot access emergency rental assistance in time. This could accelerate evictions for households already behind on rent.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)While requiring landlords to continue accepting previously accepted payment methods during late payments helps consistency, it does not require them to accept *new* methods (e.g., digital wallets or apps), potentially excluding tenants who rely on newer but increasingly common payment options like Venmo or Zelle—especially younger or tech-savvy low-income renters.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income and unbanked tenants benefit significantly: they gain clearer rights to use common payment methods and receive receipts, reducing risk of wrongful eviction over payment disputes. However, inability to use cash may pose hardship for those without bank access.
Small landlords and property managers gain clarity and predictability in handling late or partial payments, reducing legal ambiguity in eviction proceedings. However, they face new administrative burdens (e.g., receipts, payment method flexibility) and may see reduced leverage in collecting arrears.
Large property management firms may benefit from standardized procedures reducing legal risk, but face compliance costs. They are less likely to be harmed than small landlords due to existing systems for receipts and payment tracking.
Courts and legal professionals benefit from reduced ambiguity in eviction law, potentially lowering case volume and simplifying adjudication—but may see no net reduction if fewer disputes are resolved pre-filing.
Housing support agencies may see increased demand for mediation if landlords and tenants still dispute payment acceptance, but could benefit from clearer rules enabling earlier resolution before court filing.