Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Citation
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-05-06
Other Sections in This Document (57)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
- Josephinium Associates v. Kahli, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)
Full Text
972 charsThe unlawful detainer statute permits a tenant to assert "any legal or equitable defense or set-off arising out of the tenancy."[20] An equitable defense arises when "there is `a substantive legal right, that is, a right that comes within the scope of judicial action, as distinguished from a mere moral right'" and the usual legal remedies are unavailing.[21] To protect the summary nature of the unlawful detainer action, defenses "arise out of the tenancy" only when they affect the tenant's right of possession or are "`based on facts which excuse a tenant's breach.'"[22] Where a defense exists that arises out of the tenancy, the court must consider it.[23] Conversely, where a defense or counterclaim is not necessary to determining the right to possession, the court has no jurisdiction to consider it in an unlawful detainer action.[24] When the tenant's breach is failure to pay rent, the inquiry is "whether there is any legal justification for nonpayment."[25]