Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 837346 orderanopinion.pdf

Tenants contend that the trial court erred in failing to award statutory damages and

attorney fees, which they claim are required by the RLTA and the SMC upon

finding a violation. We agree with Tenants and reverse in part on this point. We
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/2

also hold that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in awarding damages

to Hoskins for costs he incurred to restore the property to “move-in condition” after

Tenants vacated the property, and we reverse on that point as well. In all other

respects, we affirm.

I

Tenants first learned of the rental property at issue in this appeal (the

Property) in June 2018. After seeing the Property, they filled out an application,

which Hoskins approved. Hoskins then sent them a lease with a move-in checklist

for them to fill out. The purpose of the required move-in checklist is to identify

existing issues that are purportedly subject to repair by the landlord. Tenants

signed both the lease and the checklist as required. Hoskins also signed the

checklist but did not send it back to Tenants. Instead, Hoskins responded to a list

of move-in issues that Tenants had provided by e-mail. Hoskins replied promptly

to that list and repaired those issues that could be fixed.

The monthly rent was $2,395, and Hoskins also required a security deposit

of $2,800, which included a $300 nonrefundable cleaning fee. Although Tenants

paid the security deposit without complaint, they discovered a year later that a

security deposit cannot lawfully exceed the monthly rent, nor can a nonrefundable

move-in fee exceed 10 percent of the monthly rent, under SMC 7.24.035. Hoskins