Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

possession. Kessler v. Nielsen, 3 Wn. App. 120, 126, 472 P.2d 616 (1970). Once an

unlawful detainer action is commenced and the defendant does not concede the right to

possession, he or she has the right to have the issue determined. Housing Auth. of City
of Pasco and Franklin Ctv. v. Pleasant, 126 Wn. App. 381, 389, 109 P.3d 422 (2005).

Pham argues that the trial court "fail[ed] to explain how relocation assistance
relates to possession of the property." Br. ofAppellant at 21. And he claims it is
contradictory for a tenant to ask for assistance to vacate while he or she continues to
assert a right to possession. We disagree. By seeking relocation assistance, the
Tenants do not concede the right to possession. Instead, they claim the right has been
compromised by the Unit's unlawful status, which, in turn, gives rise to the claim for
relocation assistance. Thus, the issue of the right to possession is intimately tied to the

lawful status of the Unit and the Tenants' right to relocation assistance. Furthermore,

the relocation assistance claim is also based on facts that would excuse a tenant's

breach, because it requires a finding that the dwelling is or will be unlawful to occupy. A
             
No. 70956-9-1/8

landlord would be precluded from renting a dwelling that was illegal to occupy, and any
tenants would be absolved of their duty to pay rent.4

The Tenants also argue that excluding relocation assistance claims from unlawful

detainer proceedings would undermine the goals of the statute. We find this argument

persuasive. The legislature's stated purpose when it enacted RCW 59.18.085 was to

prevent tenants from being forced to "remain[ ] in rental housing that does not meet the