<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>New situation for me and can’t find any law on this. Through standard UD action, obtained a Writ of Restitution against named tenant and all persons residing at that mobile home lot number, say “Space 10.”. It appears that one of the named tenants (meth-head) may move out and in with another mobile home owner that wasn’t getting evicted but is still in the same mobile home park. The other named tenant is removing his mobile home. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I can see both sides. Landlord can argue that T is being evicted from LL’s entire property and she can’t avoid the eviction just by couch surfing in another unit. (I can see this happening in an apartment complex under WA Residential LL/T law.) T can argue that she was evicted from Space 10 only and that she has every right to be someone’s guest, even if in the same mobile home park. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Any thoughts? Landlord wants her gone.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>