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
1,713 charsquelled 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