Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/709569.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,282 chars

and delay taking any action until forced to do so.

We find that there is no safe harbor for landlords once they have been notified

that the dwelling will be condemned or will be unlawful to occupy, even if they are in the

process of permitting.7 The statute inherently requires notice before the violation is

issued because it only applies to landlords who "knew or should have known" about the

conditions. RCW 59.18.085(3)(a). There is no additional opportunity to cure and to

impose one would allow landlords to delay the process and continue to rent unlawful
dwellings without penalty.

Pham argues that the statute must contain an additional implicit notice
requirement and cure period because RCW 59.18.085 Notes indicate that a landlord is
to receive "due notice." Uws of 2005 ch. 364, § 1. The notes read "[tjhe purpose of this

act is to establish a process by which displaced tenants would receive funds for
relocation from landlords who fail to provide safe and sanitary housing after due notice

of building code or health code violations." \± Again, the Legislature already provided
for "due notice" by requiring a "governmental agency responsible for the enforcement of
a building, housing, or other appropriate code" to "notif[yj the landlord that a dwelling" is