Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,751 chars
[p]aragraph (c) sets forth when notice to vacate may be sent
following the moratorium stated in paragraph (b). However, that

11 We cite to Watson pursuant to GR 14.1(b), in reliance on 10th Cir. R. 32.1, for its

persuasive value only.

17
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/18

moratorium is not even applicable in this matter as it applies to
“legal action to recover possession of the covered dwelling from the
tenant for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges[.]” The
eviction at issue is premised upon the ending of the lease period.

Sherman, 318 So.3d at 449 (alterations in original).

Each of these cases, in analyzing the plain text of the CARES Act, either

explicitly or implicitly adopted the interpretation presented herein. Thus, the

sparse decisional authority in jurisdictions outside Washington further reinforce

that the CARES Act only requires 30 days’ notice for evictions stemming from

nonpayment of rent.

D

The Amicus suggests that a report by the federal Congressional Research

Service (CRS), created after Congress passed the CARES Act, is a persuasive

resource that supports a broad reading of the Act’s 30-day notice to vacate

provision. We disagree.

We need not resort to other aids of statutory interpretation if the plain

meaning of the statute in question is clear. As discussed above, the plain

meaning of Section 4024 of the CARES Act is clear: the 30-day notice paragraph

therein applies only to notices for evictions stemming from nonpayment of rent.

Nevertheless, even assuming that Section 4024 was ambiguous, the CRS report

offered by the Amicus is unpersuasive.

The CRS report in question was issued the month following the enactment