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

1,133 chars

¶37 Pham makes several additional perfunctory arguments against the Tenants’ entitlement to relocation costs. We reject each of them. Pham’s claim that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that the building was unlawful to occupy is meritless. The explicit language in the City’s letters demonstrate otherwise. Pham’s argument that the statute does not allow assistance *836to be paid to tenants who choose to relocate is simply incorrect. RCW 59.18.085(3) does not address a tenant’s choice to relocate, but subsection (2) specifically allows a tenant who “elects to terminate the tenancy as a result of the conditions leading to the posting” to recover additional damages if a landlord knowingly violates subsection (1). The trial court stated that the tenants “elected to be relocated” but found that Pham had to pay only relocation assistance under RCW 59.18.085(3)(a). CP at 88. Thus, the trial court’s comment is of no consequence to the Tenants’ entitlement to relocation assistance. Even if the tenants had chosen to relocate, it would not negate the mandatory payment required by subsection (3)(a).

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text