Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Trefethen, 155 Wash. 493, 284 P. 783 (1930). The Foisv court approved of the

affirmative defense of breach of warranty of habitability, because it "goes directly to the

issue of rent due and owing, which is one of the basic issues in an unlawful detainer

action " 83 Wn.2d at 31-32. Pham claims that the Foisv standard is "limited to the

diminution in rental value" only, not claims for damages, but cites no authority for this

argument. Br. of Appellant at 21. On the contrary, Foisv is often cited as the authority

allowing counterclaims for damages for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

See Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 41, 711 P.2d 295 (1985), Anqelo Prop. Co.,

LP v. Hafiz, 167 Wn. App. 789, 811-812, 274 P.3d 1075 (2012): Heaverlo v. Keico

Indus., Inc., 80 Wn. App. 724, 729, 911 P.2d 406 (1996). Furthermore, RCW 59.18.400

3 Pham also argues that the Tenants are notentitled to a monetary award because they failed to
pay the required filing fee for a counterclaim or obtain a waiver. But because he cites no authority for the
argument, we decline to consider it.
             
No. 70956-9-1/7

enables a tenant to "assert any legal or equitable defense or set-off arising out of the

tenancy." We reject Pham's arguments and hold that the Tenants are permitted to raise

the defense of breach of warranty of habitability in this action.

We also find that the Tenants' claim for relocation assistance was properly raised

in this action. An unlawful detainer action is a limited statutory proceeding to resolve the

right to possession between the landlord and the tenant. Chapter 59.12 RCW; Munden,

105 Wn.2d at 45. The law draws a distinction between possession and the right of