Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/709569.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,270 chars

agree with the trial court's assessment that Pham's claim for late fees "has no legal
basis" because the Tenants were found to be current in rent. CP at 84. An appellate
court may "sustain a trial court's judgment upon any theory established by the pleadings
and supported by proof." Wendle v. Farrow, 102 Wn.2d 380, 382, 686 P.2d 480 (1984)
(citing Gross v. Lvnnwood, 90 Wn.2d 395, 401, 583 P.2d 1197 (1978)). Based on

11 This assumes that the building would have been lawful to occupy. It was not lawful to occupy
during the time that Pham argues that he is entitled to charge late fees.
20
             
No. 70956-9-1/21

Pham's breach of the warranty of habitability, the trial court concluded that as of April

2013, the Tenants had overpaid rent for nine months, and that overpayment had

already covered the rent due for May, June, and July 2013. Therefore, at the time of

trial, there was no rent that had "not [been] paid on or before the due date." CP at 56.

The Tenants request an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party on

appeal. Under RCW 59.18.290 and RAP 18.1, the Tenants are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorney's fees and costs on appeal.

Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

Z

21