because (1) the commissioner erred by ruling that they did not assert any right related to smoke
and carbon monoxide detectors in order to raise a presumption that the unlawful detainer action
was retaliatory, (2) Tedford’s “begrudging compliance” does not mean she did not retaliate, and
(3) a full trial is required. Br. of App. at 15.
10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52222-5-II
We disagree and hold that (1) because Guy and Mattler were in breach of the lease at the
time Tedford served them with the twenty-day notice to terminate, the presumption is that
Tedford’s actions were not retaliatory, and Guy and Mattler had the burden at the show cause
proceeding to establish that Tedford’s actions were retaliatory, and they failed to meet their burden.
We also hold that (2) substantial evidence supports the conclusion of law that Tedford did not
retaliate, and (3) because there are no genuine issues of material fact, a trial is not required. Thus,
we further hold that the superior court did not err when it denied the motion to revise, adopted the
commissioner’s findings, conclusions, and decision, awarded additional attorney fees and costs,
and entered the judgments.
A. RETALIATORY EVICTION
Under RCW 59.18.240, so long as the tenant is in compliance with chapter 59.18 RCW, a
landlord “shall not take or threaten to take reprisals or retaliatory action against the tenant because
of any good faith and lawful . . . [a]ssertions or enforcement by the tenant of his or her rights and
remedies under this chapter.”3 This includes evicting the tenant. RCW 59.18.240. RCW
59.18.250 provides that if an eviction is initiated within ninety days after the tenant asserts a right,