[WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

[Carmen Rowe]

I am rather with Paul on this one - if guilty of UD, the UD statute quite
arguably still applies.

The downside, of course, is the risk that an appellate court disagrees and
finds the case should have been converted - in which case the money
judgment will be invalid and the case remanded. There was just a case out
today on that:

Jun. 5, 2018 - 35137-8 - Luz Castellon, et vir v. Sergio Rodriguez, et ux

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=351378MAJ

I don't know the risk is high in most cases; and in the end I think Paul's
analysis the correct one. The LL/T act is to be strictly construed, and
while that is meant to protect the tenant, perhaps in this instance that
benefits the landlord.

I have also seen the argument go so far as to say the LL still needed the
writ because failing to surrender within the notice period equates
ambiguity as to whether tenant truly vacated, and seeking confirmation from
the court so the LL can proceed without risk of any problems is a
legitimate request. The few times I've seen it argued the court agreed (or
at least went along with it). Again - if an appellate court disagreed the
entire thing would be remanded, but perhaps seeking a writ on those grounds
(if applicable) strengthens the argument it should stay in UD proceedings.



Carmen Rowe, Attorney/Owner


Phone: (360) 669-3576 (direct cell)
Email:  Carmen at GryphonLawGroup.com

*Mailing address: *1673 S. Market Blvd. #202, Chehalis, WA 98532
*Olympia/Lacey office: *1415 College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503
*Seattle office: *1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98154


*We also offer virtual meeting options, and are often available to meet
with you in an alternate location convenient to you.*

*Privileged and confidential: *This message is confidential. If you receive
this message in error, please let us know, and please delete and disregard
any information it contains. We thank you for your respect in not sharing
this email with anyone.

If we are communicating with you regarding a debt or monies owed, THIS MAY
BE AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT, AND ANY INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR THAT
PURPOSE. You have the right to seek legal advice from an attorney. To the
extent that the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies, this
firm is acting as a debt collector for the firm's client named above. Any
information obtained will be used for collection purposes.

​
Craig, I read the statute differently from the other listserv members.  I
have had tenants move out after service of the summons and complaint but
before the show cause hearing.  When I informed the judge at the show cause
hearing that the T had moved out, the judge basically tossed the file aside
and said "next".  Then I pointed out to the judge that while it was no
longer necessary to obtain a Writ of Restitution, T still met the
definition of being in unlawful detainer because T was in possession of the
premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and so the LL was still
entitled to a judgement.  The judge frowned but signed the judgement.



RCW 59.12.030 says that the "tenant of real property for a term less than
life is guilty of unlawful detainer either: ...
3) When he or she continues in possession in person or by subtenant after a
default in the payment of rent, and after notice in writing requiring in
the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the detained
premises, served (in manner in RCW 59.12.040<http://app.leg.wa.
gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.12.040> provided) in behalf of the person
entitled to the rent upon the person owing it, has remained uncomplied with
for the period of three days after service thereof. The notice may be
served at any time after the rent becomes due."

I would argue that if T stays in the premises for ANY TIME after the 3 day
notice has expired (and service of the summons and complaint), then T is
"guilty of unlawful detainer."  But, I guess it comes down to what does
"continues in possession" mean?  I have successfully argued that LL is
still entitled to a judgment because the T is "guilty of unlawful detainer"
even though T has vacated the premises.  The section says it's unlawful
detainer if T continues in possession after the end of the 3 day period, it
doesn't say that T must STAY in the premises past the expiration of the 3
day notice and until the Show Cause Hearing.   No, I do not have case law
to back it up but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180605/d359ee76/attachment.html>