Christensen violated former RCW 59.18.280 as alleged in count 10.
Mr. Christensen assigns error to the trial court awarding Ms. Heston double the
security deposit amount. He claims the evidence failed to establish that he intentionally
refused to mail the statement or refund the deposit. Ms. Heston responds that it is
undisputed that Mr. Christensen did not return the deposit within 21 days. Such inaction
amounts to an intentional refusal to comply with former RCW 59.18.280.
Former RCW 59.18.280(2) stated that “[i]f the landlord fails to give the statement
together with any refund due the tenant within the time limits specified he or she shall be
liable to the tenant for the full amount of the deposit.” In its discretion, a trial court may
“award up to two times the amount of the deposit for the intentional refusal of the
landlord to give the statement, or refund due.” Id. (emphasis added). A tenant seeking an
award greater than their deposit has the burden of proving the landlord intentionally
withheld the deposit.
Here, the final bill claimed cleaning fees and damages totaling $253.20. Without
explanation, this amount was increased to $255.00 on the final bill. Also included in the
16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 39271-6-III
Heston v. Christensen
final bill was an additional $240.00 charge for shampooing the carpets in three rooms.
However, the fee for carpet cleaning was previously included in the $255.00 total
cleaning and damage charge. At his deposition, Mr. Christensen testified that he may
have mistakenly assessed the $240.00 carpet cleaning fee.
Mr. Christensen intentionally refused to timely and sufficiently provide Ms.