Sec. 4004

Citation: Sec. 4004
Parent Document: The Housing Authority Of The County Of King, App. V. Angela Knight, Res. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2024-02-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9478467/the-housing-authority-of-the-co... ↗

Full Text

2,126 chars

the language of the Act is clear. Section 4024(b) expressly provides
        a moratorium related to residential summary process actions
        commenced on the basis of nonpayment of rent. Subsection (c) of
        the same section, 4024 describes the requirements for the notice to
        vacate and expressly refers back to subsection (b). Specifically,
        this subsection (c), upon which the defendant relies; expressly
        states that the lessor of the covered dwelling unit must provide 30
        days’ notice “and” may not issue said notice “until after the
        expiration of the period described in subsection (b).”
                The plain language of the Act provides that the two
        subsections are integrally related, and the notice at issue is one for
        nonpayment of rent. The word “and” is conjunctive. “The word ‘or’
        can never be substituted for ‘and’ in a statute when the meaning of
        the language used in the statute is plain and there is nothing in it to
        call for the substitution. Courts will construe ‘or’ as ‘and,’ and vice
        versa, only where from the context of other provisions of the
        statute, or from former laws relating to the same subject and
        indicating the policy of the State thereon, such clearly appears to
        have been the legislative intent. 25 R.C.L., Statutes, § 226, p. 977;
        Sutherland, Statutory Construction (1943, 3rd ed.), § 4923, p. 450.”
        Macri v. Liquor Control Commission, 113 Conn. Sup. 206, 208
        (1945).
                In reading the language of the Act as a whole, the plain and
        unambiguous language supports that the 30-day notice
        requirement is applicable to nonpayment of rent cases only and not
        to cases such as this one brought for serious nuisance. . . . While
        the defendant notes that there are no Connecticut state or federal
        cases that have addressed this issue in other than nonpayment of
        rent cases, there is good reason for that; specifically because those
        are indeed the cases to which these sections apply.

Other Sections in This Document (436)

Full Text