Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 829769.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 829769.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,753 chars
59.18.310(1) and the RLTA’s clear intention to protect tenants.

To support its claim for forfeiture of the security deposit, CDR argues that early

termination of a lease causes damages other than lost rent, including labor costs to

schedule and manage cleaning and repairs, relisting and advertising, screening and

interviewing new applicants, and executing a new lease. CDR characterizes the

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 82976-9-I/10

retained security deposit as liquidated damages for these losses. 4 However, RCW

59.18.310(1)(b)(ii) already accounts for these costs by specifying that the tenant is liable

for “actual costs incurred by the landlord in rerenting the premises together with

statutory court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Because a landlord can already

recoup these costs in addition to lost rent, subject to the mitigation requirement,

forfeiture of the security deposit is unnecessary to remedy non-rent losses.

Finally, the cases cited by CDR do not support its claim that leases can contain

provisions for nonrefundable security deposits upon abandonment of the lease, as

neither addressed the issue. In Carlstrom v. Hanline, the lease stated that the deposit

was non-refundable if the tenant moved out within the first six months of the lease. 98

Wn. App. 780, 782, 990 P.2d 986 (2000). The issue was whether the lease was

ambiguous; the court was not asked to, and did not review the merits of the

nonrefundable security deposit provision in the lease. Id. at 784. In Hammond v.

Boatsman, the court reviewed only whether a notice to pay rent or vacate waived the

right to sue for liquidated damages. 24 Wn. App. 24, 26, 600 P.2d 581 (1979). There