Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,722 chars
Hous. Ass’n v. City of Seattle, 22 Wn. App. 2d 426, 452-53, 512 P.3d 545 (2022) (Out-of-

5
The statute indicates a trial is proper if “there is a genuine issue of a material fact
pertaining to a legal or equitable defense or set-off.” RCW 59.18.380 (emphasis added).
A tenant’s legal defense might be a claim that the landlord’s basis for eviction is untrue.
See, e.g., Webster, 18 Wn. App. 2d at 256-57. Or the tenant may have an affirmative
defense that admits the landlord’s allegations, but nevertheless claims a right of
possession. See, e.g., Josephinium Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617, 621, 45 P.3d 627
(2002). Either way, the statute suggests the tenant has a right to a trial if the tenant has
raised a genuine issue of material fact.

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

possession landlords retain a property interest protected by due process principles.). A

landlord may enjoy their property as an investment free from unreasonable risk. By failing

to keep an apartment in a clean and sanitary condition, a tenant may interfere with their

landlord’s right to a secure investment, insofar as they risk permanent damage to the

apartment or disturbances to the landlord’s other tenants.

Second, Ms. Daniels argues genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether

her conduct was a sufficiently severe interference with K&H’s use and enjoyment of the

property. We note that RCW 59.18.650(2)(c)’s phrase, “unreasonable interference with

the use and enjoyment of the premises,” echoes a common definition of “nuisance.”

See Moore v. Steve’s Outboard Serv., 182 Wn.2d 151, 155, 339 P.3d 169 (2014) (“[A]n