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

award damages based on the security deposit violation because it found that

“plaintiffs did not suffer any damages as a result of the violation . . . .” Nor did it

award damages for the checklist violation, similarly ruling that “[t]he court does not

1 While the Supreme Court has held that the RLTA is a remedial statute, see Silver v. Rudeen

Mgmt. Co., 197 Wn.2d 535, 548, 484 P.3d 1251 (2021), the parties dispute whether the SMC is
remedial in nature. The proper resolution of this issue determines whether any ambiguity in the
SMC must be resolved in Tenants’ or Hoskins’ favor. Because we find no ambiguity in the RLTA or
the SMC, we need not (and do not) rely on these rules of statutory interpretation.
2 SMC 7.24.035(A) states in relevant part, “After January 15, 2017, the total amount of a security

deposit and nonrefundable move-in fees may not exceed the amount of the first full month’s rent
for the tenant’s dwelling unit.”
3 SMC 7.24.035(B)(4) states in relevant part, “The total amount of non-refundable move-in fees

may not exceed ten percent of the first full month’s rent . . . .”
4 SMC 7.24.030(C)(1) provides, “The landlord shall prepare and provide to the tenant at the
commencement of tenancy a written checklist or statement specifically describing the condition and
cleanliness of or existing damages to the dwelling unit at the time of occupancy including damages
to the premises and furnishings, which include but are not limited to walls, floors, countertops,
carpets, drapes, furniture, and appliances. The checklist or statement shall be signed and dated by
the landlord and the tenant, and the tenant shall be provided with a copy of the signed checklist or
statement.”