Maple Leaf Property Management tried and failed to evict the squatters under Superior Court of Washington case 26-2-07388-1 SEA. Despite the squatters not paying rent for 6 months, the case was dismissed by request of the defendant, Sasan Keyhani, due to multiple mistakes by Maple Leaf Property Management and their attorney. All information on this page is from public records of case 26-2-07388-1 SEA, both filed documentation and audio from hearings and the trial.
The case was ultimately dismissed due to the attorney ignoring the judges order for a trial brief, after it took nearly half a year of procedures to get the case on the docket, however the case was made far more complex than simply showing the defendant had not paid any rent due to fundamentally flawed rental documentation created and executed by Maple Leaf Property Management.
Improperly Completed 14-Day Notice to Pay Rent
There were fundamentally flawed issues with the 14-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Vacate the Premises issued by Maple Leaf Property Management. Starting with something as basic as not listing the month that rent was due for. The very first section of the form explicitly states to “(list month(s)):”, and Maple Leaf Property Management failed to do this. They also listed the amount due as $3,100, which is the amount due for the entire month. The problem is that the rental start date was not the 1st of the month, so the prorated amount would have to be listed for the document to be accurate and valid. It is almost unfathomable that a company whose primary business is managing property rentals would not know how to properly fill out a form that explicitly asks to list the month(s). This mistake, along with others below, allowed the defense attorney to delay the case multiple times.
Unsigned Rental Agreement and Conflicting/Inaccurate Lease Agreement
Per court documents, Maple Leaf Property Management failed to counter-sign the Rental Agreement. It also shows that Maple Leaf Property Management erroneously listed the start of the lease as January 9, 2027 instead of January 9, 2026. Again, for a company whose main business is property management, these mistakes are inexcusable.
The Trial
Evictions in King County are difficult, and even more so in Seattle. Tenants have access to free legal representation, who are very adept at using procedural motions to delay the eviction as long as possible. In most cases where rent is due, getting an actual trial date where the judge has given ample time for arguments is exactly what is legally needed to get the residents removed.
However, as stated above, some very basic mistakes made by Maple Leaf Property Management on items that, as part of their core business, they should be well versed in made things far more difficult. Click here to read the Defendant’s Trial Brief. It painfully details all the ways that Maple Leaf Property Management failed to issue a proper lease, failed to counter-sign documents and issued a flawed Notice to Pay Rent or Vacate. These are mistakes you would expect from a first time landlord attempting to rent property themselves, and not from “the leading property management company in the Pacific Northwest Region”.
I had previously linked to the Defendant’s Trial Brief above. This was filed as required by order of the judges Pretrial Order made at a hearing on May 6th. In the written order (and verbally at the May 6th hearing), the unambiguous directions were “Trial briefs may be short, but they are not optional in this case. They are required in order to provide the Court will clear notice of which issues remain in dispute.” Maple Leaf Property Management’s attorney failed to provide a brief. As a result, the defendant’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution the day before the trial date.
In that Motion to Dismiss and the audio of the trial, it detailed some events leading up to the trial. The judge had their bailiff reach out to the attorneys regarding the briefs and other documents. Maple Leaf Property Management’s attorney replied:
“Plaintiff did not plan to file a trial brief, and will be relying for exhibits on the documents already filed with the court in this case – there is nothing else to add from our end by way of exhibits. I will get my staff on the task of getting the exhibits uploaded to case center. We are still planning to proceed.”
The judge’s court replied with:
“Good morning Counsel,
The judge directs counsels to page 3 of the pretrial order in this matter, sub-35 page 3, lines 20-22:
‘Trial briefs may be short, but they are not optional in this case. They are required in order to provide the Court will[sic] clear notice of which issues remain in dispute.’”
During the June 9th trial, the judge was very irate about the plaintiffs attorney NOT complying with court orders. You can listen to the recording by clicking here. It is relatively short, but a pretty amazing listen.
The final outcome of the trial was the judge dismissing the case and for Limited Dissemination, which effectively prevents tenant screening companies from reporting a past eviction.
After 6 months of paying zero rent and damaging the owner’s property, the squatters maintain control of the property and cannot currently be reported as having been evicted due to the massive mistakes by Maple Leaf Property Management and their attorneys.