Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Finally, Pham argues that the trial court was required to find that he brought the
eviction to avoid paying relocation assistance.8 Reply brief at 6. This is not correct.
RCW 59.18.085(3)(a) requires payment of relocation assistance regardless of whether

any retaliatory action has been taken against the tenants.

Tenants' Default

Pham argues that the trial court wrongfully applied the Tenants' last month's rent
to bring them out ofdefault. He claims that in order to apply the last month's rent, the
Tenants had to 1) give twenty days' notice of intent to vacate, 2) indicate that they
wanted to apply the last month's rent to thatfinal month, and 3) actually vacate. Br. of

8 Subsection (3)(d) prevents a landlord from taking retaliatory or collateral action against tenants
after receiving a notice of violation. This does not have any effect on a landlord's duty to pay relocation
assistance under subsection (3)(a).

17
             
No. 70956-9-1/18

Appellant at 14. The Tenants claim that they are entitled to apply the prepaid last

months' rent as an offset for any amount due and owing.

We find no error in the trial court's assessment. Pham received a month's worth

of prepaid rent from the Tenants. The lease does not contain any provisions specifying

how this prepaid rent will be applied, or any conditions that must be met before it may

be credited. Again, under RCW 59.18.400, a defendant in an unlawful detainer action

"may assert any legal or equitable defense or set-off arising out of the tenancy." The

Tenants raised the defense that they were current in rent because they prepaid the last

month's rent. The trial court appropriately applied the prepayment as an offset and