Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

entitlementto relocation costs. We reject each of them. Pham's claim that substantial

evidence did not support the trial court's finding that the building was unlawful to occupy

is meritless. The explicit language in the City's letters demonstrate otherwise. Pham's
argument that the statute does not allow assistance to be paid to tenants who choose to
relocate is simply incorrect. RCW 59.18.085(3) does not address a tenant's choice to
relocate, but subsection (2) specifically allows a tenant who "elects to terminate the
tenancy as a result of the conditions leading to the posting" to recover additional
damages if a landlord knowingly violates subsection (1). The trial court stated that the
tenants "elected to be relocated" but found that Pham had to only pay relocation

16
             
No. 70956-9-1/17

assistance under RCW 59.18.085(3)(a). CP at 88. Thus, the trial court's comment is of

no consequence to the Tenants' entitlement to relocation assistance. Even if the tenants

had chosen to relocate, it would not negate the mandatory payment required by

subsection (3)(a).

Pham also argues that a tenant can sue under RCW 59.18.085(3)(e) only if

relocation assistance has been ordered and the landlord fails to pay. The Tenants argue

that 3(e) creates a private right of action against a landlord, independent of

governmental enforcement. We agree with the Tenants and find that (3)(e) allows a

tenant to bring a private action to recover relocation assistance due under subsection

(3)(a). The text of subsection (3)(e) distinguishes the governmental enforcement and

the private right by allowing attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded for actions brought

under (3)(e) or (3)(c).