This is in the state of Washington.
The lease states that
- after the expiration, the lease will automatically renew for successive terms of one month each
- the resident agrees to execute all revised rental agreements upon request
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.
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.
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?
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.
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, issued by the governor of the state under the emergency powers. The landlord recognizes this, and stipulates this, when making their request.