187 Wn. App. 816, 351 P.3d 214 (2015). Contrary to Tenants’ argument, the court in Pham did not
allow the tenants to recover under both the RLTA and the SMC for the same underlying violation.
Instead, the issue was whether the tenants could recover both relocation assistance under SMC
22.206.260(F) and other relief under the RLTA. 187 Wn. App. at 835. Also critical here, Pham
interpreted and applied chapter 22.206 SMC and not the provisions in chapter 7.24 SMC at issue
here. 187 Wn. App. at 835. It is of no moment here that Title 22 SMC does not affect or limit a
tenant’s rights under the RLTA—as the court held in Pham, citing SMC 22.206.305—because
Tenants here are not pursuing a claim under that title.
-9-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/10
language: “the prevailing party may recover court costs and reasonable attorneys’
fees.” RCW 59.18.260 (emphasis added). Thus, for the same reasons set forth
above (the mandatory language in SMC 7.24.060(A)(1)), Tenants are entitled to
recover reasonable attorney fees as well as statutory damages under SMC
7.24.060(A)(1). We remand the matter to the trial court to award these amounts. 7
B. Notice of yardwork
Tenants next argue that the trial court erred when it rejected their claim that
Hoskins violated SMC 22.206.180(F) when a gardener entered the backyard
without providing two days’ notice. SMC 22.206.180(F)(1)(a) states in pertinent
part that it is unlawful for an owner to “[e]nter a tenant’s housing unit or premises”
except after giving the tenant “at least two days’ notice of intent to enter for the
purpose of inspecting the premises, making necessary or agreed repairs,
alterations or improvements, or supplying necessary or agreed services.”