State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256, 263, 226 P.3d 131 (2010) (quoting State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d
572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009)).
A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation after
a review of the plain meaning. Id. “[B]ut ‘a statute is not ambiguous merely because different
interpretations are conceivable.’ ” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Est. of
Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc., 166 Wn.2d 489, 498, 210 P.3d 308 (2009)). If a statute
is ambiguous, we may look to the legislative history and relevant case law to discern legislative
intent. Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 762, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014).
II. ANALYSIS
Snow argues that the statute is ambiguous because the language provides that the owner
does not have to make reasonable attempts to sell the residence until after the tenant has vacated,
but it also provides that the landlord does not have cause to evict a tenant unless the owner has
made reasonable attempts to sell the residence.
To Snow’s point, the statute states that there is cause to evict a tenant that remains in
possession of a residence “after the owner elects to sell” the residence. RCW 59.18.650(2)(e)
(emphasis added). But the definition of elects to sell states that the owner must make reasonable
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 56232-4-II
attempts to sell or advertise the property “within 30 days after the tenant has vacated.” Id. Although
this definition plainly means that the owner is not required to make reasonable attempts to sell or
advertise the property before the tenant has vacated, it is unclear, then, how a landlord would have