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

Related Parts of This Source

1,723 chars

the apartment, regularly dispose of trash, and unpack boxes. During her testimony,

Ms. Daniels addressed some of the specifics regarding the state of her apartment.

She reiterated that the company that had moved her into the apartment had not helped

her unpack. According to Ms. Daniels, the movers “stacked . . . boxes three high on two

walls of [the] apartment.” RP (Feb. 15, 2022) at 127. Ms. Daniels could not move the

boxes “because they were too heavy.” Id. Ms. Daniels explained there was clothing on

her floor because a closet rod broke and she was unable to fix it. Ms. Daniels also

explained that her incontinence problem leads to an increase in the amount of garbage she

produces, and that she had difficulty opening the garbage dumpster at the complex on her

own. On cross-examination, Ms. Daniels conceded the condition of her apartment was

unacceptable from a cleanliness standpoint. She also agreed her apartment was “in poor

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

condition.” Id. at 158.

The trial court not only granted K&H’s request for issuance of a writ of restitution,

but issued the landlord final judgment, finding Ms. Daniels had failed to properly clean

and maintain the premises as alleged. The court found there had been “substantial or

repeated and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises by

the landlord, not necessarily other tenants.” RP (Feb. 22, 2022) at 210. The trial court

did not find waste or nuisance, concluding there were unresolved issues of fact. With

respect to Ms. Daniels’s affirmative defense regarding her disability, the court concluded