flooring and cleaning services, dated August 4 and August 10, 2015, respectively.
(None of the invoiced work had been completed when Rudeen sent the preliminary
statement.) Silver disputed any responsibility for the alleged excessive wear and tear,
and, when he questioned the basis and amount of damage Rudeen had claimed,
Rudeen referred the claim to a third-party collection agency.
On August 10, 2017—more than two years but less than three years after the
deadline for the deposit statement—Silver filed a complaint for damages against
Rudeen to recover the deposit. Silver brought the complaint on behalf of himself and
3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
No. 98024-1
similarly situated former tenants whose deposits Rudeen had withheld in violation
of RCW 59.18.280.2 He alleged one cause of action under the RLTA. He alleged
facts relating to the terms of the lease agreement, but he did not state a cause of
action for breach of contract.
Silver claimed that Rudeen violated the RLTA because it did not provide a
full and specific statement of the basis for retaining any of the deposit or return any
portion of the deposit within 14 days after tenants vacated the premises as required
under the RLTA. 3 He argued that the preliminary deposit statement reflected an
estimate or anticipated charges and should not qualify as “a full and specific
statement” required by RCW 59.18.280(1). Even if the final statement, which
included invoices for specific services, qualified as “a full and specific statement,”
Rudeen sent it well past 14 days after Silver vacated the premises. Therefore, Silver
alleged, Rudeen failed to send a full and specific statement or any refund of the