Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/389189_pub.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
Full Text
1,775 chars(2004) (“[N]o landlord . . . may ever use nonjudicial, self-help methods to remove a tenant.”). A landlord’s service of a notice to terminate a tenancy is not a remedy. It is a legal prerequisite to avail oneself of the superior court’s jurisdiction. See Hall v. Feigenbaum, 178 Wn. App. 811, 819, 319 P.3d 61 (2014). Because K&H did not pursue a remedy under the RLTA within 60 days of providing Ms. Daniels with a notice to cure or vacate under RCW 59.18.650(2)(b), the November 3 notice expired. The only notice still operative by the time K&H filed suit on January 10, 2022, was the one dated December 27, 2021. Sufficiency of the December 27 notice The December 27 notice was issued pursuant to RCW 59.18.650(2)(c), 2 which allows a landlord to terminate a tenancy with three days’ notice based on “waste,” “nuisance,” “unlawful activity that affects the use and enjoyment of the premises,” or 2 The notice also cited RCW 59.18.650(2)(b), which authorizes a landlord to terminate a tenancy based on a “substantial breach” of a material lease term. However, subsection (2)(b) requires a tenant be given 10 days to cure their noncompliance. Because the December 27 notice did not provide such a cure period, it cannot fairly be read as invoking subsection (2)(b). See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 372, 173 P.3d 228 (2007) (noting the time and manner requirements of notice demand strict compliance). Thus, subsection (2)(c) was K&H’s only viable cause for eviction. 15 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 38918-9-III Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels “other substantial or repeated and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or neighbors of the tenant.”