2
Preliminarily, Tedford argues that this case is moot because Guy and Mattler voluntarily vacated
the house and returned their keys on August 1, 2018, they do not assert a right of possession, and
they were not evicted, and thus, there is no relief that this court can grant. “A case is technically
moot if the court cannot provide the basic relief originally sought, or can no longer provide
effective relief.” Snohomish County v. State, 69 Wn. App. 655, 660, 850 P.2d 546 (1993) (internal
citation omitted). However, an unlawful detainer action is not moot “simply because the tenant
no longer has possession of the premises.” IBF, LLC v. Heuft, 141 Wn. App. 624, 631, 174 P.3d
95 (2007). A tenant has the right to have the issues resolved if she does not “concede the right of
possession.” Heuft, 141 Wn. App. at 631. If a tenant has a monetary stake in the outcome of the
proceedings, “[o]bviously, [such a] case is not moot.” McGary v. Westlake Investors, 99 Wn.2d
280, 284, 661 P.2d 971 (1983). Because Guy and Mattler have a judgment against them that will
be vacated if this case is reversed, they have a monetary stake in the outcome of the proceedings,
and we hold that the case is not moot.
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52222-5-II
RCW 59.18. A tenant cannot exclude the landlord “after the termination of the rental agreement
[and] . . . [a]ny landlord so deprived of possession . . . may recover possession of the property and
damages sustained by him or her . . . and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” RCW 59.18.290(2).
A tenancy on oral terms is presumed to be a month to month lease. RCW 59.18.200(1)(a).
Such tenancy may be terminated by written notice of twenty days or more. RCW 59.18.200(1)(a).