Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

4 Even if Pham were correct that a relocation assistance claim did not relate to possession, there
is no reason why the trial court could not have resolved the question of possession and then converted
the unlawful detainer action to a civil action at that time. This would have permitted the trial court to
address the relocation assistance claim in the same proceeding, while preserving the special nature of
the unlawful detainer action. Where the right to possession ceases to be at issue at any time between the
commencement of an unlawful detainer action and trial of that action, the proceeding may be converted
into an ordinary civil suit for damages. Munden, 105 Wn.2d at 45-46. Despite Pham's contention at oral
argument that this is "not the law," a trial court has "inherent power to fashion the method by which an
unlawful detainer action is converted to an ordinary civil action." \j± at 47. Once the case has been
converted, the trial court's general jurisdiction is restored and it can hear claims between the parties that
were excluded from the unlawful detainer action. Id at 45-46.

8
             
No. 70956-9-1/9

cure. He also argues that there was no evidence of a rodent infestation. The Tenants

argue that the record contains sufficient evidence to show that Pham breached the

implied warrant of habitability.

In a residential unlawful detainer action, a tenant may raise a defense based on a

landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Foisv, 83 Wn.2d at 32. For a

breach of this warranty, the trier of fact must find "(1) Whether the evidence indicates

that the premises were totally or partially uninhabitable during the period of habitation