Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

sent Tison a notice that her rent would be increased to $405 starting in July 2009.

Tison began paying $385 per month, consistent with the rent cap provision; the parties

dispute how these payments were considered by Western Plaza, and there is nothing

in the record that indicates whether Western Plaza contemporaneously rejected any

of Tison's $385 payments or indicated to her that it considered those payments partial.

Regardless, this dispute does not affect the outcome of this appeal. 4

In June 2011, Western Plaza informed Tison that her rent would increase to

$495 starting in October 2011. Relying on the rent cap provision, Tison attempted to

2 The trial court decided this case on cross motions for summary judgment, and there are
disputed facts. However, these disputed facts do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
3 Tyson's rent increased to $355 in October 2003, to $365 in October 2005, and to $375 in

October 2007, consistent with the rent cap provision.
4 Because we hold that Tison's lease satisfied the requirements of the MHLTA statute of

frauds, we do not consider Tison's alternate argument that Western Plaza's acceptance of
her payments constitutes part performance. Thus, the resolution of these disputed facts is
irrelevant to this appeal.

2
             
Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, No. 90179-1

pay the $395 she believed was due. 5 Western Plaza rejected her payments and

initiated this unlawful detainer action.

Tison moved for summary judgment, arguing that Western Plaza was bound by

the rent cap provision. Western Plaza argued that the rent cap provision was not

enforceable because it conflicted with the MHLTA and violated the statute of frauds.