-5-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/6
find the plaintiffs suffered any damages as a result of not receiving a copy of the
lease that contained the landlords’ [sic] signature.”
Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and conclusions
regarding SMC 7.24.035(A), 7.24.035(B)(4), and 7.24.030(C)(1). Preliminarily,
Hoskins charged Tenants a security deposit of $2,800 despite a monthly rent of
$2,395 in violation of SMC 7.24.035(A). While Hoskins promptly returned the
overage when the tenants informed him of the violation, SMC 7.24.035(A) is stated
in the disjunctive—“charged or withheld”—and he plainly charged an unlawful
amount. Additionally, SMC 7.24.035(E) states that “[n]o deposit may be collected
by a landlord unless the rental agreement is in writing and a written checklist or
statement specifically describing the condition and cleanliness of or existing
damages to the premises and furnishings . . . is provided by the landlord to the
tenant at the commencement of the tenancy.” Thus, if a landlord fails to provide a
signed checklist, as occurred here, the landlord cannot lawfully charge, collect, or
withhold a security deposit. Because Hoskins violated SMC 7.24.035(A), SMC
7.24.035(B)(4), and SMC 7.24.030(C)(1), it was unlawful for him to charge, collect,
or withhold any security deposit.
Despite this evidence, Hoskins argues that he is not liable to Tenants under
SMC 7.24.060(A)(1) because that provision imposes liability only if a landlord
“attempts to enforce provisions in a rental agreement that are contrary to the
requirements of Sections 7.24.030, 7.24.035, 7.24.036, or 7.24.038.” SMC
7.24.060(A)(1) (emphasis added). The SMC does not define the critical phrase