Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

William B. Stoebuck, The Law Between Landlord and Tenant in Washington: Part

I, 49 WASH. L. REV. 291, 316-17 (1974). Nothing in the statutory language,

legislative history, or underlying purposes compels a different result in the

MHL T A context.

A. MHL TA leases are not exempt from the statute of frauds, and there is no
irreconcilable conflict between them

We have the duty to harmonize statutes that relate to the same subject

wherever possible. Beach v. Ed. of Adjustment of Snohomish County, 73 Wn.2d

343, 346, 438 P.2d 617 (1968). The MHLTA and the statute of frauds plainly

apply to the same subject-leasehold encumbrances on real property. There is no

provision in the MHL TA that explicitly replaces or preempts the general tenancy

statute of frauds. The statute of frauds therefore applies unless it irreconcilably

conflicts with the specific provisions of the MHLTA. See Ass 'n of Wash. Spirits &

Wine Distribs. v. Wash. State Liquor Control Ed., 182 Wn.2d 342, 356, 340 P.3d

849 (2015); Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 126, 147, 18 P.3d 540

(2001) (where two statutes address related subjects, the more specific statute

1
Encumbrances on real estate normally must be by deed, and "[a] lease is an [e]ncumbrance."
Richards v. Redelsheimer, 36 Wash. 325, 329, 78 P. 934 (1904). RCW 59.04.010 provides an
exception (not a replacement) forleases of one year or less. Id. at 331.

2
             
Western Plaza, LLCv. Tison, No. 90179-1
Yu, J. (dissenting)

prevails only "insofar as the statutes conflict"). It does not. While the MHLTA

certainly has provisions modifying some rules applicable to leases generally, these

provisions are perfectly consistent with RCW 59.04.010.