If a lease provision says that a tenant has to accept revisions, how extensive can the revisions be?
<p>This is in the state of Washington.</p>
<p>The lease states that</p>
<ul>
<li>after the expiration, the lease will automatically renew for successive terms of one month each</li>
<li>the resident agrees to execute <em>all revised</em> rental agreements upon request</li>
</ul>
<p>Prior to the lease expiring (but more than 20 days in advance), the landlords requests that the tenant sign a month-to-month lease with a substantially different wording.</p>
<p>What happens if the resident refuses and insists that the old wording allows them to stay on the old lease, but for month-to-month terms instead of the new terms.</p>
<p>Assuming that there is no change in the amount of the rent (so no advanced notice of change of rent is necessary), which of the two provisions wins out?  Does the tenant break the lease by not executing the new (substantially differently worded) lease or does the lease renew unless the landlord gives a notice to terminate?</p>
<p>BTW, I am not asking for a legal advise.  I am asking if there is any state law that limits how extensive a lease revision may be.</p>
<p>Edit: to further narrow down the question, there is currently a moratorium on landlord-initiated termination of leases, or serving of notices of unlawful detainer, <a href="https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamations/20-19.3%20Coronavirus%20Evictions%20%28tmp%29.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">issued by the governor of the state</a> under the emergency powers.  The landlord recognizes this, and stipulates this, when making their request.</p>

<h2>The old terms apply ...</h2>
<p>... until the landlord gives notice and ends the lease - then the tenant has to get out.</p>
<p>This is not inconsistent with the requirement to “execute all revised rental agreements upon request” - unless and until new terms have been agreed, there are no “revised rental agreements”, once there are, the tenant can be requested to (and must) execute them. There seems to be a misapprehension that this term gives the landlord a unilateral right to change the terms - it doesn’t. However, if the landlord wanted to formalize the month-to-month arrangement that is created under the old lease with new documents (or any other mutually agreed arrangement), then the tenant is obliged to sign it.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>after the expiration ... Prior to the lease expiring</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those are the key words. Once lease has expired the parties are all even. Noone owes anything to anyone (assuming all rent has been paid and there are no claims). Tenant can either sign a new lease on whatever terms can be agreed, or go.</p>
<p>The wording &quot;<em>the resident agrees to execute all revised rental agreements upon request</em>&quot; will not have literal legal effect (one cannot contract to enter another, yet unknown contract). However, what it clearly conveys is that the landlord will not enter negotiations on signing new leases: either you accept what they offer, or go.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What happens if the resident refuses and insists that the old wording allows him to stay on the old lease, but for month-to-month terms instead of the new terms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Landlord obtains a court order for eviction and throws the tenant out.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does the tenant break the lease by not executing a new (substantially differently worded) lease or does the lease renew unless the landlord gives a notice to terminate?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tennant cannot break an expired lease. Lease does not renew unless parties agree and sign.</p>

landlord residential-lease tenant washington