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
1,740 charsactivity 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