Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,693 chars
year lease for a rental home with the property management company TAG Realty. As a

condition of the lease, the Cromars provided a security deposit in the amount of

$2,200. 1 The lease provided:

If Tenant vacates prior to the Expiration Date (as extended, if applicable),
the security deposit shall be forfeited and Tenant shall be obligated for
rent payments for the remainder of the term, or until the Property has been
re-rented whichever is less.

Upon purchasing a home, the Cromars notified TAG Realty in February 2023 that

they would be terminating their lease early. They moved out of the rental home at the

end of March. On April 5 TAG Realty emailed a move-out statement to the Cromars.

The statement, titled “EARLY TERMINATION SECURITY DEPOSIT FORFEIT,”

deducted $1087.19 from the Cromars’ security deposit for touch-up painting and the

replacement of one blind. The statement provided that the balance of the Cromars’

deposit was due to TAG Realty and stated at the bottom, “**No refund due to tenants

due to early termination**.” The next day, the Cromars sent a letter to TAG Realty

requesting that the balance of their security deposit be returned on the ground that

forfeiture of the deposit due to early lease termination is not permitted under the RLTA. 2

On April 24 TAG Realty responded to the email:

We received your letter from the mail, again as per the lease agreement,
you terminated the lease early so the security deposit will be forfeited
thanks!

The Cromars then obtained legal assistance to prosecute their rights under the

RLTA. They hired the firm Anderson Santiago, PLLC, and were assisted by counsels

Jason D. Anderson and T. Tyler Santiago. 3