Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,740 chars

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38918-9-III
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels

(quoting RCW 59.18.650(2)(b)). Second, that Ms. Daniels had committed “‘waste,’”

“‘nuisance,’” “‘unlawful activity that affects the use and enjoyment of the premises,’” or

“‘other substantial or repeated and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of

the premises by the landlord or neighbors.’” Id. at 13-14 (quoting RCW 59.18.650(2)(c)).

K&H also requested a writ of restitution restoring it to possession of the premises pending

the unlawful detainer action. The trial court scheduled a show cause hearing. Ms. Daniels

obtained appointed counsel, answered the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses, and

filed a motion to dismiss. Ms. Daniels’s answer argued that if the court did not dismiss

K&H’s complaint, factual issues remained that “‘must be resolved by trial.’” Id. at 188

(quoting Hous. Auth. v. Pleasant, 126 Wn. App. 382, 392, 109 P.3d 422 (2005)).

Ms. Daniels’s accommodation request

Just before filing her answer, affirmative defenses, and motion to dismiss,

Ms. Daniels’s attorney sent a letter to counsel for K&H. The letter stated Ms. Daniels

generally denied the allegations set forth in K&H’s complaint. But to the extent she was

in violation of her tenant duties, the letter explained it was due to disability. Ms. Daniels

formally requested she be given an accommodation to allow her “to continue her tenancy

and avoid homelessness.” Id. at 172.

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38918-9-III
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels

Ms. Daniels’s accommodation request stated she was 80 years old and suffered