cause to evict a tenant that “continues in possession after the owner elects to sell” when the owner
does not prove that they have elected to sell the residence until after the tenant has vacated. Id.
However, this does not necessarily render the statute ambiguous because, when discerning
the plain meaning of a statute, we review not only the meaning of the language at issue, but also
the context of the statute, related statutory provisions, and the entire statutory scheme. Gonzalez,
168 Wn.2d at 263. “An act must be construed as a whole, considering all provisions in relation to
one another and harmonizing all rather than rendering any superfluous.” State v. George, 160
Wn.2d 727, 738, 158 P.3d 1169 (2007).
The provision at issue also provides a rebuttable presumption that the owner did not intend
to sell given certain events within either 30 or 90 days after the tenant has vacated. RCW
59.18.650(2)(e)(i)-(ii). Furthermore, under a different subsection of the statute, “[a] landlord who
removes a tenant or causes a tenant to be removed from a dwelling in any way in violation of this
section is liable to the tenant for wrongful eviction,” and the tenant is entitled to damages. RCW
59.18.650(4).
If we were to interpret RCW 59.18.650(2)(e) as requiring an owner to make reasonable
attempts to sell the property before a landlord may evict a tenant, this interpretation would render
the rebuttable presumption portion of that statutory provision superfluous. But, harmonizing this
provision with the remainder of the statute, the rebuttable presumption portion appears to favor
the tenant only in the context of a wrongful eviction action. This is because if the tenant has already
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.