Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)

Citation: Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)
Parent Document: Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2015-05-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4956711/pham-v-corbett/ ↗

Full Text

1,340 chars

¶16 Under this exception, Washington courts have permitted counterclaims for breach of warranty of habitability and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. See Foisy v. Wyman, 83 Wn.2d 22, 32, 515 P.2d 160 (1973); Income Props. Inv. Corp. v. Trefethen, 155 Wash. 493, 284 P. 782 (1930). The Foisy court approved of the affirmative defense of breach of warranty of habitability, because it “goes directly to the issue of rent due and owing, which is one of the basic issues in an unlawful detainer action. . . .” 83 Wn.2d at 31-32. Pham claims that the Foisy standard is “limited to the diminution in rental value” only, not claims for damages, but cites no authority for this argument. Br. of Appellant at 21. On the contrary, Foisy is often cited as the authority allowing counterclaims for damages for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. See Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711 P.2d 295 (1985); Angelo Prop. Co. v. Hafiz, 167 Wn. App. 789, 811-12, 274 P.3d 1075 (2012); Heaverlo v. Keico Indus., Inc., 80 Wn. App. 724, 729, 911 P.2d 406 (1996). Furthermore, RCW 59.18.400 enables a tenant to “assert any legal or equitable defense or set-off arising out of the tenancy.” We reject Pham’s arguments and *827hold that the Tenants are permitted to raise the defense of breach of warranty of habitability in this action.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text