agreement with Princeton, that waives tenant rights. The Allens summarize their argument as the
CR 2A settlement agreement “allowed Princeton to evict the Allens without the Allens having
access to the rights they otherwise would[ have] been able to assert against the offered reason for
eviction, however it is characterized.” Reply Br. of Appellants at 28. And as a result, the Allens
argue that the settlement agreement was void and unenforceable.
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 58183-3-II
In response, Princeton largely focuses on RCW 59.18.230(1)(b)’s reference to the rights
under RCW 59.18.410 related to the nonpayment of rent. Princeton claims the settlement
agreement pertained to nuisance, not the nonpayment of rent. And Princeton contends all of the
specific tenant rights that the Allens assert the agreement violated only apply to unlawful detainers
based on the nonpayment of rent.
To resolve this case, we must first determine whether RLTA’s recently-adopted antiwaiver
provision, RCW 59.18.230(1)(b), applies to the parties’ settlement agreement. If so, we must
determine whether the agreement violates that provision.4
As noted above, the plain language of RCW 59.18.230(1)(b) is extremely broad; it
prohibits any agreement that waives any rights afforded under chapter 59.18 RCW with few
exceptions. And it expressly targets settlement agreements under CR 2A, by applying to “any
agreement . . . entered into pursuant to an unlawful detainer action.” RCW 59.18.230(1)(b)
(emphasis added). Here, because the agreement was entered into pursuant to an unlawful detainer
action, the agreement clearly falls within the scope of the provision.