will have no incentive to resolve disputes if they are forced to follow the usual unlawful detainer
procedures upon a tenant’s breach of a settlement agreement. At oral argument, Princeton
suggested landlords would “never enter into a CR 2A agreement because you [would] never be
able to resolve the case without having a show cause hearing.” See Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral
argument, Princeton v. Allen, No. 58183-3-II (May 7, 2024), at 20 min., 40 sec. through 20 min.,
53 sec., video recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network,
https://tvw.org/video/division-2-court-of-appeals-2024051016/?eventID=2024051016.
We disagree with Princeton’s suggestion that settlement agreements will have no utility
following our holding. But it is true that RCW 59.18.230(1)(b) will likely change how these
settlement agreements are drafted. And Princeton’s view may be a valid policy argument for why
settlement agreements (especially when both parties are represented) should be treated more
favorably under RLTA. But that policy argument is better made to the legislature.
5
Because we hold that the settlement agreement was void and unenforceable, we do not address
the Allens’ other arguments for reversal.
13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 58183-3-II
III. ATTORNEY FEES
Both parties request attorney fees on appeal. We deny Princeton’s request because they
are not the prevailing party on appeal.
The Allens seek attorney fees under RAP 18.1(a) (which authorizes an award of fees if
“applicable law” permits), RCW 59.18.290(2), the lease agreement, and RCW 59.18.650. But it
is not yet clear which party will prevail on the merits of the unlawful detainer action. MOSM, 544