upon the date of lease expiration with three months’ notice. Former RCW 59.20.090(2). This
interpretation of the statutes is in accordance with one of the significant purposes of the MHLTA,
8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 53352-9-II
which is “to give heightened protection to mobile home tenants” because it provides predictability
as to the timing of rent increases. McGahuey, 104 Wn. App. at 182.
The ALJ correctly interpreted former RCW 59.20.090(2). Therefore, TST has failed to
meet its burden to show that the ALJ erroneously interpreted the law, and we affirm the ALJ’s
order granting the Program’s motion for summary judgment.
D. ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS
In addition to arguing that the ALJ erroneously interpreted the law regarding former RCW
59.20.090(2), TST appears to argue that summary judgment was improper because the rent
increases were valid under the existing or implied rental agreements with the parties. The terms
of Lane’s rental agreements do not permit the rent increases here. And TST’s arguments regarding
the implied lease agreements rely on their interpretation of former RCW 59.20.090(2), which we
have rejected. Therefore, TST’s additional arguments fail.
1. Rent Increases Under Lane’s Written Rental Agreement
TST argues that rent increases for Lane were valid because the increases were permitted
by the rental agreement and were no more frequent than annually; therefore, the Program was not
entitled to judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment was not proper. We disagree.
Absent disputed facts, the legal effect of a contract is a question of law we review de novo.
In re Estate of Petelle, 195 Wn.2d 661, 665, 462 P.3d 848 (2020). Our primary goal is to ascertain