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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,782 chars

tips the economic scales in the landlord’s favor to withhold deposits at will. The trial

court’s reduction of the Cromars’ fees based on conclusory findings not grounded in the

law is an abuse of its authority.

Additionally, the trial court’s plain disapproval of the Cromars’ efforts to vindicate

their and other tenants’ rights through a class action indicates that the court failed to

consider the purpose of an attorney fee award under the RLTA. A trial court must

consider the purpose of the statute that provides the basis for attorney fees in its

determination of the amount of an attorney fee award. Berryman, 177 Wn. App. at 668

(citing Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 149, 859 P.2d 1210 (1993); Brand,

18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/19

139 Wn.2d at 667). Because “attorney fees statutes may serve different purposes, it is

important to evaluate the purpose of the specific attorney fees provision and to apply

the statute in accordance with that purpose.” Brand, 139 Wn.2d at 667. “A statute’s

mandate for liberal construction includes a liberal construction of the statute’s provision

for award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Progressive Animal Welfare Soc’y v. Univ. of

Wash., 114 Wn.2d 677, 683, 790 P.2d 604 (1990); accord Eagle Point Condo. Owners

Ass’n v. Coy, 102 Wn. App. 697, 713, 9 P.3d 898 (2000) (discussing Brand, 139 Wn.2d

at 667-71).

Here, the legal basis for the Cromars’ attorney fee award under RCW

59.18.280(2) of the RLTA is undisputed. It has long been established that “[th]e RLTA is

a remedial statute that must be ‘construed liberally in order to accomplish the purpose

for which it is enacted.’” Silver, 197 Wn.2d at 548 (quoting State v. Douty, 92 Wn.2d