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

1,509 chars

¶24 Pham argues that the trial court applied the wrong standard when it found him in breach of the implied warranty of habitability. He contends the trial court erroneously required him to take “ ‘all reasonable measures’ ” to ensure that the unit was rodent-free because the Tenants had a small child. Br. of Appellant at 12-13. In support of this argument Pham points to the court’s oral ruling, in which, quoting Landis & Landis Construction, LLC v. Nation, 171 Wn. App. 157, 166, 286 P.3d 979 (2012), it stated that “ ‘[t]here is no doubt that a rodent infestation can create an actual or potential safety hazard’ ” and that this was “especially true where, as here, an infant is in the home.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 85. The trial court also stated that Pham “had a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to keep rats from the unit, which he failed to do.” Id. But the trial court’s written findings show that its conclusion was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the sewage leak, the rats, the odors, the faulty handrails, the holes in the floor, and Pham’s failure to remedy any of the conditions.5 A written order controls over any apparent inconsistency with the court’s earlier oral *831ruling. Shellenbarger v. Brigman, 101 Wn. App. 339, 346, 3 P.3d 211 (2000). Accordingly, we reject Pham’s argument that the trial court relied on an improper standard of habitability when it concluded that he breached the implied warranty of habitability. Award of Relocation Assistance

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text