<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Black";
panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.io-ox-signature, li.io-ox-signature, div.io-ox-signature
{mso-style-name:io-ox-signature;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think I can harmonize the positions taken by Marcus and myself by saying that Washington follows the common law except where it is superseded by statute. However, the case of <u>Landis & Landis v Nation</u> <span style='color:black;background:white'>286 P.3d 979 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2012)</span> holds that in unlawful detainer, the common law and the statute can coexist as alternative remedies.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>To avoid taking the language out of context, I have copied a long section of the case below:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>11 Nation contends that<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a name=hit15 id=hit15><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#AA1212'>Landis</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> </span></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>had to proceed under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act and give her notice and an opportunity to eliminate the rodents before suing for breach of contract. She argues that the Residential Landlord Tenant Act superseded common law remedies.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 12 The act did not supersede common law remedies. By its plain language, the act preserves other tenant remedies against a landlord. The statutory notice and remedy process is provided to the tenant " in addition to pursuit of remedies otherwise provided him or her by law." RCW 59.18.070. A tenant may premise an action against a landlord under any of three legal theories: the act, the rental agreement, or the common law.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Dexheimer v. CDS, Inc.,</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=Wash.App.&citationno=104+Wash.App.+464&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>104 Wash.App. 464</span></a>, 467, 470,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.3d&citationno=17+P.3d+641&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>17 P.3d 641</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>(2001).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>13 One common law theory available to a tenant is the implied warranty of habitability. Our Supreme Court first recognized this theory in October 1973, three months after the Residential Landlord Tenant Act went into effect, in <i>Foisy v. Wyman,</i> 83 Wash.2d 22,<a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=515+P.2d+160&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>515 P.2d 160</span></a> (1973). In <i>Foisy,</i> the tenant argued that the landlord's violation of an implied warranty of habitability excused his failure to pay rent and provided him an affirmative defense to the landlord's unlawful detainer action. The court agreed, reasoning that any " realistic analysis of the lessor-lessee or landlord-tenant situation leads to the conclusion that the tenant's promise to pay rent is in exchange for the landlord's promise to provide a liveable dwelling." <i>Foisy,</i> 83 Wash.2d at 27, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=515+P.2d+160&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>515 P.2d 160</span></a>. The court held that " in all contracts for the renting of premises, oral or written, there is an implied warranty of habitability," and that breach of this implied warranty could be employed by the tenant as a defense to unlawful detainer. <i>Foisy,</i> 83 Wash.2d at 28, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=515+P.2d+160&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>515 P.2d 160</span></a>. The court's belief that " public policy demands such a result" was " reinforced" by the new statute. <i>Foisy,</i> 83 Wash.2d at 28, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=515+P.2d+160&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>515 P.2d 160</span></a>. Because the act and the <i>Foisy</i> decision developed independently, " we cannot presume that the Legislature intended the act to restrict application of the implied warranty of habitability."<i>Aspon v. Loomis,</i> <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=Wash.App.&citationno=62+Wash.App.+818&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>62 Wash.App. 818</span></a>, 825, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=816+P.2d+751&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>816 P.2d 751</span></a> (1991), <i>review denied,</i> 118 Wash.2d 1015, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=827+P.2d+1011&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>827 P.2d 1011</span></a> (1992).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>¶ 14 Nation contends that the implied warranty of habitability is only available in disputes that arose before the Residential Landlord Tenant Act went into effect and also that the implied warranty is limited to the context of unlawful detainer. Nothing in<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy </i>indicates such limitations.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 15 Nation contends the act was intended to modify and supersede the implied warranty of habitability found in<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy </i>because the act preceded<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy,</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>this contention is inaccurate. Nation relies on an opinion that states, erroneously, that the implied warranty of habitability governed Washington tenancies even prior to the adoption of the act and that the act " codified" the implied warranty of habitability.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Howard v. Horn,</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=Wash.App.&citationno=61+Wash.App.+520&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73'>61 Wash.App. 520</span></a>, 524,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=810+P.2d+1387&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>810 P.2d 1387</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>(1991). The erroneous chronology in<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Howard</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>originated in a misleading statement in an earlier case, where the court implied that the legislature was following the " lead" of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>when it enacted the Residential Landlord Tenant Act.<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Lincoln v. Farnkoff,</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=Wash.App.&citationno=26+Wash.App.+717&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>26 Wash.App. 717</span></a>, 719-20,<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=613+P.2d+1212&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>613 P.2d 1212</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>(1980). The legislature may have been following a general trend in the law, but obviously the legislature was not following the lead of<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy,</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>which had not yet been decided.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: 1;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 16 In short, the implied warranty of habitability recognized in<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>has not been superseded by statute. The implied warranty of habitability recognized in<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>Foisy</i><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>is available to a tenant as a basis for legal action against a landlord under the common law, independent of the Residential Landlord Tenant Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 17 Nation next contends that a defective condition cannot be an actionable breach of the implied warranty of habitability until the landlord receives notice of the alleged defect and fails to remedy it after a reasonable time. Nation supports this argument by citing <i>Franklin v. Fischer,</i> 34 Wash.2d 342, 348-49, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=208+P.2d+902&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>208 P.2d 902</span></a> (1949), a case from the era of caveat emptor.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 18 In <i>Franklin,</i> lessees of a commercial property claimed the landlord had breached an express covenant to keep the water supply and roof in repair. Their claims for damages were denied because the lessors made the repairs as rapidly as possible after being notified of the problem. <i>Franklin,</i> 34 Wash.2d at 348-49, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=208+P.2d+902&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>208 P.2d 902</span></a>. <i>Franklin,</i> however, does not apply because it pertains to a commercial lease and, as well, because it predates <i>Foisy.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 19 A treatise cited by Nation addresses in general terms what amounts to a breach of the implied warranty. Nation relies on the author's statement, " it would seem that the landlord should not be deemed to be in breach of his duty unless he fails to make the necessary repairs within a reasonable time after receiving notice ..." WILLIAM B. STOEBUCK & DALE A. WHITMAN, <i>THE LAW OF PROPERTY</i> § 6.38, at 307 (3d ed. 2000).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 20 But Nation omits the remainder of the sentence, which reads " — at least where the defective condition(s) only arise, or become patent, after the tenancy begins." Here, the evidence of rodent infestation was patent at move-in. Thus Professor Stoebuck's statement does not mean that </span><a name=hit16><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#AA1212'>Landis</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> had to wait upon Nation's efforts at extermination in order to have an actionable claim. There was no evidence that the presence of rodents was due to conduct by the </span><a name=hit17><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#AA1212'>Landis</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> crew.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 21 The Supreme Court of Hawaii has persuasively rejected the argument that a new tenant who encounters a rodent infestation on the first day of the tenancy must endure the infestation while waiting for the rodents to be eliminated:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>While it is not clear where the rats came from, assuming that they did originate from outside of the premises, the defendant had it within her power to keep them out by proper and timely screening and extermination procedures. Indeed this was done before the next tenant moved in.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:5.0pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>But to begin such procedures after the plaintiff had occupied the dwelling and to expect that he have the requisite patience and fortitude in the face of trial and error methods of extermination was too much to ask.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><i><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>Lemle v. Breeden,</span></i><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> 51 Haw. 426, <a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=462+P.2d+470&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style='color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none'>462 P.2d 470</span></a>, 475 (1969). Consistent with <i>Foisy,</i> <i>Lemle</i> adopted the view that " a lease is essentially a contractual relationship with an implied warranty of habitability and fitness," so that a tenant may resort to " basic contract remedies of damages, reformation, and rescission" instead of being constrained by rigid rules originating in the law of property. <i>Lemle,</i>462 P.2d at 475.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 22 Nation notes that in <i>Lemle,</i> the tenants stayed in the rat-infested rental for three days and vacated the premises only after the landlord's early attempts to get rid of the rats failed. But the <i>Lemle</i> court did not hold that the tenants' right to relief depended upon giving the landlord time to fix the problem. Rather, the court said that each case " must turn on its own facts." <i>Lemle,</i> 462 P.2d at 476. Taking into consideration " the seriousness of the claimed defect and the length of time for which it persists" as relevant factors, the court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support judgment for the tenants. <i>Lemle,</i> 462 P.2d at 476.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> ¶ 23 Similarly here, we conclude there is sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find a material breach of the implied warranty of habitability, justifying rescission of the rental agreement and immediate vacation of the premises. The decision by </span><a name=hit18><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#AA1212'>Landis</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'> to move out immediately without giving Nation a chance to address the problem was not fatal to the claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I think the Landis case reinforces the holding in Foisy and clarifies that common law is an alternative to statutory remedies. It appears that the standard of duty of the landlord is set out in the statute and the common law provides an alternative method of enforcement insofar as habitability is concerned.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I realize that unlawful detainer is not everyone’s cup of tea and so further your affiant sayeth not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Howard Herman<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Fry<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I respectfully disagree. Foisy was started in 1971 and therefore was not decided under the RLTA which was enacted in ’73. Under the RLTA there is a procedure that a tenant must follow to give an opportunity to a landlord to remedy a defect. Merely alleging that the rental is uninhabitable in response to an eviction is not a defense if the statutory procedures were not followed by the tenant. I recognize Northwest Justice Project proffers Foisy as a case to use to try to avoid a rent eviction, but in my experience this hasn’t got past a SC hearing because of the failure of the tenant to follow statutory procedures when they believe there was a defect. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think this dialogue has been helpful for those of you practicing in the landlord-tenant arena. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Marcus J. Fry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Lyon, Weigand & Gustafson, P.S.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Adoption Attorney*<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>P.O. Box 1689</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Yakima, Washington 98907</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Telephone: (509) 248-7220</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Facsimile: (509) 575-1883</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><u><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><u><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>NOTICES:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> *Adoption Attorney reflects election as a Fellow of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, an invitation based organization of 300+ attorneys nationwide, under its criteria of experience, ethics and peer recommendation. Washington's Supreme Court has not yet developed or recognized a credentialing process for specialties, and certification/fellowship is not required to practice law in this state.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Confidentiality: </span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This e-mail transmission may contain information which is protected by attorney-client, work product and/or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately and return the e-mail to us by choosing Reply (or the corresponding function on your e-mail system) and then deleting the e-mail.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Howard Herman<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:35 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:22.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'>The argument advanced by Marcus assumes there is rent due. But we won’t know that until the defense has been tried on the merits. The allegation that there is mold on the premises is a question of fact which must be tried by a jury unless waived by the parties. RCW 59.12.130. <u>City of Pasco v Pleasant</u> 126 Wn.App. 382 Div. 3 2005<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.0in;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:67.5pt;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'>Since the affirmative defense of breach of implied warranty of habitability goes directly to the issue of rent due and owing, which is one of the basic issues in an unlawful detainer action as the above statutes indicate, we now hold said defense is available in an unlawful detainer action of this nature. <u><span style='background:white'>Foisy v. Wyman</span></u><span style='background:white'>, 83 Wn.2d 22, 515 P.2d 160 (Wash. 1973)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.0in;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black;background:white'>The court or jury could find there is toxic mold on the premises, and determine there is no rent due. If there is no rent due, there is no unlawful detainer. Win or lose, the practical aspect is that the cost of taking such a case to trial far out- weighs any benefit to the landlord and therefore some kind of offer of settlement is more attractive.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.0in;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black;background:white'>Howard Herman<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.0in;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black;background:white'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.0in;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:15.0pt;background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Fry<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:51 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Paul:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mr. Herman is correct there is an exception. However, based upon your facts mold is not a defense to failure to pay rent unless they gave written notice of the defect, then expended funds to clean it up (say spent $500 and rent is $500). Which aren’t facts in this case. The tenant is trying to get the best of both worlds, complain about substandard conditions (i.e presence of mold) and not follow the procedures outlined in RCW 59.18.115 (which by the way require the tenant to still pay rent or place the rent into escrow pending the government investigation). Again, based upon the below facts the alleged presence of mold or any other defect for that matter cannot be raised as defense to no rent due.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Marcus J. Fry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Lyon, Weigand & Gustafson, P.S.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Confidentiality: </span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This e-mail transmission may contain information which is protected by attorney-client, work product and/or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately and return the e-mail to us by choosing Reply (or the corresponding function on your e-mail system) and then deleting the e-mail.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Howard Herman<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Please see the exception to 59.18.080 bold and underlined below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Howard Herman<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Herman Jolley PS<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>509.220.5810<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Fry<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.25in'><a name=59.18.080></a><a name="_GoBack"></a><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Whether it is mold or little green aliens in the fridge (I had that case once), a tenant must be current in rent to raise the defenses. Having mold in one’s home is not an offset for rent. I knock out tenants all the time who have withheld rent for a complaint regarding the condition of the premises. Generally what happens at the SC hearing is the judge asks the tenant if she/he has the rent to bring themselves current. The tenant says no (of course not because they have spent it on other things), and the judge grants the writ. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.25in'><span style='font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.25in'><span style='font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif";color:black'>59.18.080<br>Payment of rent condition to exercising remedies — Exceptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-indent:.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The tenant shall be current in the payment of rent including all utilities which the tenant has agreed in the rental agreement to pay before exercising any of the remedies accorded him or her under the provisions of this chapter: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed as limiting the tenant's civil remedies for negligent or intentional damages: <b><u>PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section shall not be construed as limiting the tenant's right in an unlawful detainer proceeding to raise the defense that there is no rent due and owing.<o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Marcus J. Fry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Lyon, Weigand & Gustafson, P.S.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Adoption Attorney*<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>P.O. Box 1689</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Yakima, Washington 98907</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Telephone: (509) 248-7220</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Facsimile: (509) 575-1883</span><span style='color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><u><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><u><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>NOTICES:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> *Adoption Attorney reflects election as a Fellow of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, an invitation based organization of 300+ attorneys nationwide, under its criteria of experience, ethics and peer recommendation. Washington's Supreme Court has not yet developed or recognized a credentialing process for specialties, and certification/fellowship is not required to practice law in this state.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Confidentiality: </span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This e-mail transmission may contain information which is protected by attorney-client, work product and/or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately and return the e-mail to us by choosing Reply (or the corresponding function on your e-mail system) and then deleting the e-mail.</span><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Howard Herman<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:17 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'scott scottgthomaslaw.com'; 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I think the starting point is that the LL has a statutory and common law obligation to maintain the premises in an habitable condition. The presence of mold will render the premises uninhabitable to some degree. Also, if the building was built prior to 1978, it probably has lead based paint in it which could also be the source of the child’s illness. See RCW 70.103.010.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The statutory duty of the LL is in the first line of RCW 59.18.060. “The landlord will at all times during the tenancy keep the premises fit for human habitation….” The common law duty arises from the case law: <u>Foisy v Wyman</u> 83 Wn.2d 22 Supreme Court 1973 and “A tenant may premise an action against a landlord under any of three legal theories: the act, the rental agreement or the common law.” <u>Landis & Landis v Nation</u> Div. 1 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Under Foisy, the court will determine the degree of uninhabitably and abate the rent proportionally for the period of habitation. If the court determines that the premises are completely uninhabitable, the tenant gets all his rent back and there would be no basis for either a 3 or 10 day notice. (I had a case, based on expert testimony, where the court found the premises totally uninhabitable.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>In Landis, the tenant was able to rescind the lease even before he took possession. (Rodents)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Your LL might want to think in terms of relying on his 20 day notice to vacate and give the tenant some money to make a deposit somewhere else. (I had that case just recently based on bed bugs.) I think the flip side of the tenant having to move if the premises are uninhabitable is constructive eviction. Either way the LL is the loser.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Howard Herman<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Herman Jolley P S<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>509.220.5810<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>scott scottgthomaslaw.com<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:58 PM<br><b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] Mold in Rental Unit<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>I had a case like this, in which tenant immediately complained to the air pollution control agency and to the lender on the project. Long story short, it helps to have a good idea of whether or not the spots are mold, or something else. Hiring an industrial hygienist to take cultures might save a lot of trouble.<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On June 16, 2015 at 11:33 AM Paul Neumiller <<a href="mailto:pneumiller@hotmail.com">pneumiller@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I represent a LL where the T is arguing that mold/mildew in 900 sq. ft. house has caused T’s daughter’s respiratory illness and “contaminated” all of T’s possessions in the unit. T hasn’t paid rent in 2 months and loudly demands that LL clean up unit and clean/replace all of T’s possessions (“or I’ll see you in court. My ex-husband is very very rich”). There were black spots when the T pulled up the rugs (mold/animal urine?). LL has evidence and proof that T was a chain smoker, had multiple long haired animals in the house (and urinating in the house) AND T constantly had blankets and quilts hung over the windows of the house. In other words, the house was kept closed up tight (on wet Whidbey Island) with multiple people living there and taking showers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>LL wants them out and gone but needs to be in the best position if T can make good on T’s promise to sue. T refuses to remove anything from the house because T demands that LL clean/replace everything. It is a month-to-month lease. LL has already taken multiple photographs and video of inside condition of house and heard from neighbors about the stench of cigarette smoke coming from the house. Since LL has time before the deadline for a combined 3, 10, and 20 day notice, I plan to send to T a letter giving T the chance to move out of the house and remove all of T’s possessions. Any suggestions before I bring the standard unlawful detainer action? <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><p><br> <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>WSBARP mailing list<br><a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p><br> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=io-ox-signature>Scott G. Thomas<br>Law Office of Scott G. Thomas<br>1204 Cleveland Avenue<br>Mount Vernon, WA 98273<br>(360) 503-1042<br><a href="http://www.scottgthomaslaw.com">www.scottgthomaslaw.com</a><br><br>Because this is a communication from a lawyer, it necessarily contains warnings such as this. I am a lawyer, but unless we have entered into an agreement for legal services, I am not your lawyer. And, if this message was intended for someone else but you have inadvertently received it, I ask that you delete the message and let me know you received it so that I can take steps to make sure you do not receive messages in the future. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>