Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

7At oral argument, Pham claimed that without additional notice and opportunity to cure, the
statute as written would open the floodgates for relocation assistance claims because tenants would be
able to sit idly in substandard conditions and only notify their landlords when they were facing eviction.
Again, the statute requires that a landlord be notified that a building is unlawful to occupy and to have
actual orconstructive knowledge of the conditions giving rise to the illegal status before requiring them to
pay relocation assistance.
15
             
No. 70956-9-1/16

or will be "condemned" or "unlawful to occupy," before imposing a duty to provide

relocation assistance. RCW 59.18.085(1), .085(3)(a).

According to Pham, the City's letter also gives him opportunity to cure. He claims

he is not required to pay relocation assistance because the City gave him the option

and he chose to permit the unit. The Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) imposes its own

requirements for payment of relocation assistance upon the issuance of an emergency

order to vacate. SMC 22.206.260(F). The City's procedures do not affect the Tenants'

rights or a landlord's obligations under the RLTA. Nothing in the Seattle Municipal Code

"is intended to affect or limit a tenant's right to pursue a private right of action pursuant

to Chapter 59.18 RCW for any violation of Chapter 59.18 RCW for which that chapter

provides a private right of action." SMC 22.206.305. Moreover, even if Pham had

obtained the permits, the Unit was still unlawful to occupy because of the multiple

violations of the housing code which had not been remedied.

Pham makes several additional perfunctory arguments against the Tenants'