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

1,716 chars
9
Ms. Daniels contends that, even if K&H found Ms. Daniels’s requested
accommodation vague, objectionable, or flatly unreasonable, K&H should have engaged
Ms. Daniels in a dialogue to seek clarification or explore other possible solutions. We
acknowledge there is a split among legal authorities on whether such a dialogue is
required by the relevant statutes, or merely encouraged. See Joint Statement at 7
(explaining that landlords “should” open a dialogue with tenants who propose an
unreasonable accommodation, and that if there is an alternative accommodation that
would meet a tenant’s needs, the landlord “must” grant it); compare Howard v. HMK
Holdings, LLC, 988 F.3d 1185, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2021), and Groner, 250 F.3d at 1047,
with Douglas, 884 A.2d at 1122 & n.22, 1143-44, and Jankowski Lee & Assocs., 91 F.3d
at 896. At this juncture, we decline to endorse either side of this split, because we
conclude the reasonableness of Ms. Daniels’s accommodation should have reached a jury
either way.

32
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

Ms. Daniels asks for an award of attorney fees and costs, citing RCW 59.18.290

and RAP 18.1. This request is premature. If Ms. Daniels ultimately prevails on remand,

she may request attorney fees, to and including fees and costs associated with her appeal.

See Faciszewski, 187 Wn.2d at 324.

CONCLUSION

The trial court prematurely issued final judgment in favor of K&H after

granting the request for writ of restitution at the show cause hearing. Because there

are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Ms. Daniels is subject to eviction