Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf

there is a “rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof” that the action is retaliatory.

However, if the tenant is in arrears in rent or is otherwise in breach of the rental obligation, there

is a rebuttable presumption that the unlawful detainer complaint was not retaliatory. RCW

59.18.250. RCW 59.18.250 allows for an award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party.

3
Guy and Mattler argue that RCW 43.44.110 requires smoke detectors to be installed in all
dwelling units to be in conformance with certain standards, and thus, the requirement for smoke
detectors falls under RCW 59.18.060(1) and (12), which lay out a landlord’s duties. This is true,
and Tedford has not argued that it is untrue.

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 52222-5-II

Guy and Mattler were current on their rent at the time Tedford initiated the eviction

proceedings by serving them with a twenty-day notice to terminate the tenancy. However, they

were in breach of their rental agreement because they had not paid their security deposit, they had

tendered two late rent checks, and the rental agreement was not fully executed

Because Guy and Mattler were in breach of their rental agreement on April 18, the date

Tedford served them with the twenty-day notice to terminate the tenancy, the presumption is that

the unlawful detainer action by Tedford was not retaliatory, even though it was initiated within

ninety days of Mattler asserting her right to the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, assuming

she did assert her right. RCW 59.18.250. Thus, at the show cause proceeding, the burden was on

Guy and Mattler to prove that the unlawful detainer action was retaliatory.