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

9 While Hoskins made additional payments to Tenants after September 20, they relate to his
continuing efforts to negotiate with Tenants regarding the amount of their deposit refund. Given the
parties’ ongoing negotiations and corresponding resolution, these additional payments do not
violate the 21-day deadline specified in RCW 59.18.280(1). See Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate,
191 Wn. App. 88, 91, 362 P.3d 302 (2015) (requiring “conscientious attempt to comply with”
statutory deadline).
-13-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/14

Turning to the remaining items, the trial court awarded these amounts

because it found that “[w]hen the plaintiffs moved out, they did not leave the

premises in move-in condition as required by the lease” and that “Hoskins met his

burden by a preponderance of evidence that the plaintiffs did not leave the unit in

move in condition.” (Emphasis added.) Based on these findings, the trial court

awarded Hoskins $746.65 for repair costs relating to patching, paint, a refrigerator

shelf, and various other “minor repairs.” The court similarly found that “the unit

would not have been in move in condition until September 8th, 2019, when the

repairs, the yardwork, and the cleaning had been completed” and therefore

awarded $800 ($100 per day) for the eight days during which Hoskins could not

rent the unit as a result of the way Tenants had left it. 10 Tenants argue that in

awarding these damages the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. We

agree.

This issue is squarely governed by several complementary provisions of the

RLTA. First, RCW 59.18.130(10) states that “[e]ach tenant shall . . . [u]pon