Judicial Opinions

JUDICIAL OPINIONS

Notice Form and Content

  • Foisy vs. Wyman, 83 Wn.2d 22 (1973).“
  • As to the form and contents of the notice or demand, a substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient”

Settlement Agreements

  • Princeton v. Allen, No. 58183-3-II
  • The decision held that the parties CR2A settlement agreement was void and unenforceable, because it waived tenant rights afforded under the RLTA, in violation of RCW 59.18.230(1)(b).  
  • The decision’s broad and vague definition of tenant rights will make the drafting of an enforceable agreement an impossible task.  Per RCW 59.18.230(1)(b), “Any agreement… entered into pursuant to an unlawful detainer action…that waives any rights of the tenant under RCW 59.18.410 or any other rights afforded under this chapter …. is void and unenforceable.”   
  • The decision stated that the language of RCW 59.18.230(1)(b) is “sweeping in its scope.” 



Warranty of Habitability and Setoffs.

  • Foisy vs. Wyman, 83 Wn.2d 22 (1973).“
  • An implied warranty of habitability is to be read into any rental agreement:  In Foisy vs. Wyman, the court held that “The tenant’s promise to pay rent is in exchange for the landlord’s promise to provide a livable dwelling.”  Foisy vs. Wyman, 83 Wn. 2d 22 at p. 27.  However, this does not mean that rent is completely excused for any defective condition.  The court in Foisy used a two step test to determine a breach of the implied warranty:
  • Whether the evidence indicated that the premises were totally or partially uninhabitable.
  • What portion, if any or all, of the defendant’s obligation of pay rent is relieved by the landlord’s total or partial breach of her implied warranty of habitability. Foisy at p. 34.
  • The court goes on to state that “If the premises are partially habitable, and the tenant failed to tender to the plaintiff a sufficient amount to pay rent due for the partially habitable premises, then judgment shall be entered in accordance with RCW 59.12.070. Foisy at p. 34.
  • In order to excuse this complete nonpayment of rent, the court must find that the premises are totally uninhabitable. 
  • Warranty of Habitability and Setoffs          An implied warranty of habitability is to be read into any rental agreement:  In Foisy vs. Wyman, the court held that “The tenant’s promise to pay rent is in exchange for the landlord’s promise to provide a livable dwelling.”  Foisy vs. Wyman, 83 Wn. 2d 22 at p. 27.  However, this does not mean that rent is completely excused for any defective condition.  The court in Foisy used a two step test to determine a breach of the implied warranty:
  • Whether the evidence indicated that the premises were totally or partially uninhabitable.
  • What portion, if any or all, of the defendant’s obligation of pay rent is relieved by the landlord’s total or partial breach of her implied warranty of habitability. Foisy at p. 34.
  •             The court goes on to state that “If the premises are partially habitable, and the tenant failed to tender to the plaintiff a sufficient amount to pay rent due for the partially habitable premises, then judgment shall be entered in accordance with RCW 59.12.070. Foisy at p. 34.     

Relocation Assistance

  • Pham vs. Corbett, 2015 Wash App. Lexis 1076 at Par. 28.
  • Defendant argues that the defective conditions are serious enough to warrant relocation assistance per RCW 59.18.085.  Defendant relies on Pham vs Corbett, 
  • First of all, the defective conditions asserted by the tenants in Pham were much more egregious than the conditions discussed here.  Pham had illegally rented the premises as a five-plex, violating city land use and building codes.  The premises were unsanitary, with rat infestation and sewage leaks.  The court found that these conditions posed major health and safety hazards to the tenants. 
  • Secondly, in Pham, the city notified the landlord several times about these housing violations and the obligation to provide relocation assistance.  The court held that, based on the plain language of RCW 59.18.085, relocation assistance could be ordered “when a landlord had been notified that the dwelling will be condemned or unlawful to occupy due to conditions that violate applicable codes, statutes, ordinance or regulations.” 
  •    Defendant argues that the defective conditions are serious enough to warrant relocation assistance per RCW 59.18.085.  Defendant relies on Pham vs Corbett, however the facts in that case are distinguishable from ours.
  •     First of all, the defective conditions asserted by the tenants in Pham were much more egregious than the conditions discussed here.  Pham had illegally rented the premises as a five-plex, violating city land use and building codes.  The premises were unsanitary, with rat infestation and sewage leaks.  The court found that these conditions posed major health and safety hazards to the tenants. 
  • Secondly, in Pham, the city notified the landlord several times about these housing violations and the obligation to provide relocation assistance.  The court held that, based on the plain language of RCW 59.18.085, relocation assistance could be ordered “when a landlord had been notified that the dwelling will be condemned or unlawful to occupy due to conditions that violate applicable codes, statutes, ordinance or regulations.”  Pham vs. Corbett, 2015 Wash App. Lexis 1076 at Par. 28.

            .