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

the 21-day period specified in RCW 59.18.280(1). While the deposit statement was

not delivered personally to Tenants or sent by United States mail, RCW

59.18.280(1) does not mandate either method of delivery. To the contrary,

subsection (b) provides two ways to “give” the required security deposit statement

that are sufficient to establish compliance with RCW 59.18.280(1) but does not

exclude or prohibit other, equally effective, ways to give the statement, including

e-mail.

We have interpreted other statutes in a similar fashion. For example, the

first sentence of RCW 4.28.210 states that “[a] defendant appears in an action

when he or she answers, demurs, makes any application for an order therein, or

gives the plaintiff written notice of his or her appearance.” In City of Des Moines v.

$81,231 in United States Currency, 87 Wn. App. 689, 696, 943 P.2d 669 (1997),

we held that “[t]he methods set forth in RCW 4.28.210 for ‘appearing’ in an action

are not exclusive” and therefore other acts may constitute an “appearance.” The

same reasoning applies to RCW 59.18.280(1). Because undisputed facts show

that Hoskins satisfied the statutory requirement to timely “give” Tenants a security

deposit statement, and because Hoskins issued payment to Tenants within the

things) the condition of the apartment and yard. The 21-day period in RCW 59.18.280(1) thus
commences on August 31, 2019.

-12-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/13

prescribed 21-day period, 9 the trial court correctly dismissed this claim on

summary judgment.

D. Hoskins’ counterclaim for breach of the lease agreement and waste

Turning to Hoskins’ counterclaim for breach of the lease agreement and