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

1,740 chars
activity is a nuisance only when it ‘interferes unreasonably with other persons’ use and

enjoyment of their property.’”) (quoting Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wn.2d 1, 13, 954 P.2d 877

(1988)) (plurality opinion). However, RCW 59.18.650(2)(c)’s use of this terminology

must be distinct from the concept of nuisance, since subsection (2)(c) also lists “nuisance”

as a separate basis for eviction. See State v. K.L.B., 180 Wn.2d 735, 742, 328 P.3d 886

(2014) (Statutes ordinarily must not be read in a manner that leaves any portion

meaningless or superfluous.). We interpret RCW 59.18.650(2)(c)’s reference to

“interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises,” as referring to either

23
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

“substantial or repeated and unreasonable” conduct that approximates a nuisance, even

if the steep standard for a nuisance claim is not quite met.

Reasonableness is typically a question of fact, but a court can resolve a question of

reasonableness “as a matter of law where reasonable minds could come to only one

conclusion.” Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 176 Wn.2d 909, 924, 296 P.3d 860

(2013). Here, K&H’s evidence of interference with its enjoyment of the apartment was

not so strong that it could lead to only one conclusion. The evidence certainly revealed

Ms. Daniels’s apartment was significantly unkempt. However, there was no conclusive

evidence her failure to clean the premises had tangibly damaged the property or posed

an imminent threat of such injury. There was evidence of some rodent droppings, but

Ms. Daniels testified that those did not evidence a recent infestation because she had