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

Full Text

1,640 chars

comply with the RLTA’s security deposit provisions. Silver, 197 Wn.2d at 548-49. 12 The

subsection also provides for double damages if the landlord’s violation is intentional.

RCW 59.18.280(2).

The Silver court particularly observed the value of class actions in the context of

tenants’ collective recovery of unlawfully withheld security deposits. 197 Wn.2d at 547-

48. Though a security deposit may be a significant amount of money to the tenant,

renters—especially low-income renters—may be unable to afford legal representation to

recover their wrongfully withheld deposit and damage awards are often too small to be

worth a litigator’s financial investment. Id.; see also id. at 547 (noting that tenants

experiencing poverty often face security deposits and moving expenses that exceed

their monthly income) (citing Kathryn A. Sabbeth, (Under)Enforcement of Poor Tenants’

Rights, 1 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL’Y 97, 110 (2019)). The RLTA’s provisions

authorizing attorney fees and double damages and the availability of class actions

“demonstrate the importance of statutes that impose strict obligations and meaningful

remedies to hold landlords accountable to respecting tenants’ rights.” Id. at 546-48.

Like in Silver, the Cromars in the instant case sought a class action to recover

double damages for their unlawfully withheld security deposit and for other similarly

wronged tenants under the RLTA. See 197 Wn.2d at 547-48 & n.11. The record

supports that the Cromars were compelled to initiate their putative class action after

TAG Realty refused to refund their deposit upon the Cromars’ direct request. Once