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

1,799 chars

the language of the Act is clear. Section 4024(b) expressly provides
a moratorium related to residential summary process actions
commenced on the basis of nonpayment of rent. Subsection (c) of
the same section, 4024 describes the requirements for the notice to
vacate and expressly refers back to subsection (b). Specifically,
this subsection (c), upon which the defendant relies; expressly
states that the lessor of the covered dwelling unit must provide 30
days’ notice “and” may not issue said notice “until after the
expiration of the period described in subsection (b).”
The plain language of the Act provides that the two
subsections are integrally related, and the notice at issue is one for
nonpayment of rent. The word “and” is conjunctive. “The word ‘or’
can never be substituted for ‘and’ in a statute when the meaning of
the language used in the statute is plain and there is nothing in it to
call for the substitution. Courts will construe ‘or’ as ‘and,’ and vice
versa, only where from the context of other provisions of the
statute, or from former laws relating to the same subject and
indicating the policy of the State thereon, such clearly appears to
have been the legislative intent. 25 R.C.L., Statutes, § 226, p. 977;
Sutherland, Statutory Construction (1943, 3rd ed.), § 4923, p. 450.”
Macri v. Liquor Control Commission, 113 Conn. Sup. 206, 208
(1945).
In reading the language of the Act as a whole, the plain and
unambiguous language supports that the 30-day notice
requirement is applicable to nonpayment of rent cases only and not
to cases such as this one brought for serious nuisance. . . . While
the defendant notes that there are no Connecticut state or federal
cases that have addressed this issue in other than nonpayment of
rent cases, there is good reason for that;