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

1,056 chars

interpretation that Congress intended that the notice protections of subsection (c)

apply to notices to vacate for any eviction would cause subsection (b) to be

superfluous and would lead to absurd and unlikely circumstances. Accordingly,

the Amicus’s alternate interpretation cannot reflect the intention of Congress.

C

The Housing Authority asserts that the decisional authority from

jurisdictions outside of Washington that have addressed this issue have uniformly

adopted the interpretation presented herein. The Housing Authority is correct.

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/16

In a Connecticut superior court case, W. Haven Hous. Auth. v. Armstrong,

Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, 2021 WL 2775095, the judge

therein concluded that the CARES Act did not require a housing authority to

provide 30 days’ notice to vacate to evict Armstrong when the eviction action

stemmed from her serious nuisance on the premises.10 Armstrong, at *3. The

judge reasoned that