Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850318.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,746 chars

programs. 15 U.S.C. § 9058. The statute applies to tenants living
in any “covered dwelling,” which includes housing units on
properties with “[f]ederally backed mortgage loan[s].” 15 U.S.C. §
9058(a)(1), (2)(B)(i). In addition to imposing a 120-day moratorium
on eviction actions for nonpayment of rent or other charges, 15
U.S.C. § 9058(b), the CARES Act established a 30-day notice
requirement, which provides that “[t]he lessor of a covered dwelling
unit . . . may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling
unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the
lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate.” 15 U.S.C. §
9058(c)(1).

Pinzon, 24 Wn. App. 2d at 671-72 (alterations in original). We stated that,

[i]n the federal CARES Act, Congress mandated that landlords who
have accepted certain federal financial benefits must provide to
tenants living in covered housing units a 30-day notice to cure the
rental payment deficiency or vacate the premises before the
landlord may commence an eviction action.

Pinzon, 24 Wn. App. 2d at 667 (footnote omitted) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 9058).

The tenants therein had fallen behind on their rent as a result of the

economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pinzon, 24 Wn. App. 2d at 668.

Their landlord had issued them two notices to vacate, a 14-day notice stemming

from their failure to pay rent and a 30-day notice stating that such notice period

would begin upon a superior court’s order to vacate. Pinzon, 24 Wn. App. 2d at

668-69. On appeal, and as pertinent here, the parties disputed whether “lessor”

as set forth in the 30-day notice to vacate provision of the CARES Act meant a

lessor or a superior court. Pinzon, 24 Wn. App. 2d at 672-73. We concluded