Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

found that the Tenants prevailed on their defense that no rent is due and owing.

Pham argues that the Tenants were barred by RCW 59.18.080 from exercising

remedies under the RLTA because they were not current in rent. The Tenants argue

that they can exercise RLTA remedies because RCW 59.18.080 does not limit the right
to raise a defense that there is no rent due and owing.9

RCW 59.18.080 requires a tenant to "be current in the payment of rent including

all utilities ... before exercising any of the remedies accorded him or her under the

provisions of this chapter... PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section shall not be
construed as limiting the tenant's right in an unlawful detainer proceeding to raise the
defense that there is no rent due and owing." As discussed earlier, the Tenants raised

the defenses that they did not owe any rent due to their claims ofsetoff and breach of

9Alternatively, the Tenants argue that the statute does not limit the tenant's "civil remedies for
negligent or intentional damages" and that the standards required for relocation assistance should qualify
as a civil remedy for negligent or intentional damages. Given our disposition of this case, we do not
address this argument.

18
             
No. 70956-9-1/19

warranty of habitability. The trial court found that they prevailed on those claims and that

they were current in the payment of rent.

Pham also argues that the tenants had not proved any diminution in value for the

alleged defects in the premises. According to him, the trial court's conclusion that the

premises were twenty-five percent uninhabitable was not supported by evidence, and