Lane, Gosney, Simoni, and Stickley all filed complaints against TST with the Program
based on the rent increases. The Program found that TST violated the MHLTA and issued a notice
of violation. The Program concluded that TST violated former RCW 59.20.090(2) (2010)1 by
increasing rent without providing proper notice. TST appealed the notice of violation and
requested an administrative hearing.
The Program filed a motion for summary judgment. TST did not dispute any of the
underlying facts. TST argued that a proper interpretation of the relevant statutes allowed for the
rent increases and that, under the terms of the rental agreement Lane executed, they were permitted
to raise his rent, regardless of the interpretation of the statute.
In its decision, the ALJ specifically noted that there were no genuine issues of material
fact. The only issue in the dispute was the differing interpretations of the relevant statutes. The
ALJ concluded that under former RCW 59.20.090(2) rent may only be increased at the end of the
1
Former RCW 59.20.090(2) provides,
A landlord seeking to increase the rent upon expiration of the term of a rental
agreement of any duration shall notify the tenant in writing three months prior to
the effective date of any increase in rent.
3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 53352-9-II
rental term. The ALJ granted the Program’s motion for summary judgment and affirmed the notice
of violation against TST.
TST filed a petition for review in the superior court. The superior court certified the case
for direct review by this court. Based on the superior court’s certification, a commissioner of this
court granted discretionary review.2
ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW