Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 929785.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 929785.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/929785.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,356 chars

-17-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Faciszewsld, et al. v. Brown, et al., 92978-5

stop a tenant from rebutting a certification in an unlawful detainer action." Br. of

Amicus Curiae City of Seattle at 3. Rather, "the purpose of a pre-eviction

certification is to help assure----not conclusively prove----that the owner's claimed

cause actually exists." !d. at 10. As Tenants correctly note, "[I]n an unlawful

detainer action, what happens after the tenant has been evicted is not the issue."

Reply Br. of Appellants at 18-19 (emphasis added). Given that the remedy under

SMC 22.206.160(C)(4) was intended to ensure that "the invoked causes actually

exist," Seattle Ordinance 117942, at 3, and that nothing in SMC 22.206.160(C)(4)

prevents the tenant from contesting the eviction in a show cause hearing before the

eviction, a reasonable reading is that the tenant must have the opportunity to contest

the veracity of the landlord's certification at the show cause hearing. 10

While the remedies under the JCEO provide an incentive for landlords to act

fairly, nothing in the JCEO suggests that posteviction remedies are a tenant's

exclusive remedy once the landlord files a certification. Given that the JCEO is

more protective of tenants than is state law, it would seem odd that the ordinance