therefore vacate the judgment on these awards and remand the issue so that the
trial court can properly award damages for repair costs and $100 per day for each
day of lost rent, if any, based on the controlling legal standard set forth above and
in RCW 59.18.130(10).
Finally, Tenants claim that the award of $800 for lost rent also is untenable
because Hoskins collected rent from a prospective tenant for a period that included
September 1-8 and then refunded some of that rent and retained $1,297.
Addressing this issue, the trial court explained that Hoskins was unable to rent the
unit for 22 days, which would have supported a damages award of $2,200, but it
awarded only $800. The difference between these two figures is $1,400, which is
more than the amount ($1,297) that Hoskins retained from the rent paid by the
prospective tenant. While the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard for
determining liability—as the above discussion shows—it appropriately analyzed
Hoskins’ alleged damages and may elect to do so again at the conclusion of the
litigation.
-15-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/16
E. Attorney fees on appeal
Both parties request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to RAP 18.1. Tenants
argue that they are entitled to attorney fees under SMC 7.24.060, while Hoskins
seeks attorney fees under the parties’ lease. This court has repeatedly held that
“[w]here both parties prevail on major issues, neither is entitled to attorney fees.”
Sardam v. Morford, 51 Wn. App. 908, 911, 756 P.2d 174 (1988). Here, as in
Sardam, both parties have prevailed on major issues, so neither is entitled to
recover prevailing party attorney fees on appeal.
III