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

1,713 chars
quelled any problem with mice after the first four months of her tenancy. Nor was there

evidence the condition of her apartment was noticeable to anyone who did not step foot

into the unit.

We disagree with the trial court’s determination that there were no genuine

issues of material fact as to whether K&H had established substantial or repeated

and unreasonable interference with its right to enjoy the property. Trial is required.

As recognized by the trial court’s oral ruling, there are also issues of fact as to other

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

components of RCW 59.18.650(2)(c). Thus, the issue at trial will be whether K&H can

establish any grounds for eviction under RCW 59.18.650(2)(c).

2. Affirmative defense—failure to accommodate

Apart from challenging K&H’s proof of its basis for eviction, Ms. Daniels raised

an affirmative defense based on federal and state antidiscrimination law. Specifically,

Ms. Daniels asserted she is disabled due to her age, infirmity, and back conditions.

According to Ms. Daniels, her disability impaired her ability to remedy the problems

giving rise to K&H’s grounds for eviction. Ms. Daniels requested K&H accommodate

her disability by dismissing the current proceedings and giving her time to work with her

attorney to find resources to help her clean and declutter the apartment.

Both federal and state law prohibit landlords from discriminating against disabled

tenants, including the failure to reasonably accommodate a tenant’s disability. 6 42 U.S.C.

§ 3604(f)(2), (3)(B); RCW 49.60.222(1)(f), (2)(b). A tenant’s claim that a landlord has