Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

even if it were, the Tenants are still required to tender rent for the diminished value. We

disagree. First, the Tenants have already paid full rent for the entire lease term, and rent
for May 2013 was prepaid. The trial court also required the Tenants to tender rent for
June and July 2013 and calculated that amount into the offset, even though the Unit had
been deemed illegal to inhabit at that time.10 Second, there is substantial evidence in
the record to supporta finding ofsignificantly reduced habitability as a result ofthe
sewer leak, the rodent problem, the structural defects, the electrical violations, and the
"very poor" overall quality of the Unit's installation. VRP at 114. At trial, the Tenants
proposed a percentage of twenty-five based on an estimate of the percentage of actual
uninhabitable space in the Unit. This included "the pantry area, any areas where there
were rats ... [or] sewage smell." VRP at 217. Pham accepted the estimate at that time
but later disputed it in his motion for reconsideration. From the record, a rational, fair-
minded person could easily find that the Unit's habitability had been reduced by twenty-
five percent.

Pham argues that the trial court should have found that the terms of the lease
agreement continued to apply after the lease expired. He claims he should have been

10 The trial court in its discretion awarded Pham rent for that period because the Tenants were
still in possession. We note, however, that Pham's entitlement to rent during that time is questionable
given his knowledge that the Unit was unlawful to occupy. Nonetheless, because the Tenants did not
appeal the issue, we will not disturb that award.
19
             
No. 70956-9-1/20