Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

The trial court denied Tison's motion for summary judgment and resolved the unlawful

detainer action in Western Plaza's favor. The Court of Appeals reversed. W Plaza,

LLC v. Tison, 180 Wn. App. 17, 322 P.3d 1, review granted, 181 Wn.2d 1022, 336 P.3d

1165 (2014). We granted Western Plaza's petition for review and now affirm.

ANALYSIS

The issue before us is whether the rent cap provision in Tison's lease is

prohibited by the MHLTA, chapter 59.20 RCW. We are also asked to determine

whether the rent cap provision violates the statute of frauds. To answer these

questions, we apply well-established principles of statutory interpretation to chapter

59.20 RCW. These principles lead us to conclude that the MHLTA does not prohibit

the rent cap provision and that Tison's lease does not violate the statute of frauds

applicable to her mobile home lot lease. Further, we award Tison reasonable costs

and attorney fees pursuant to RCW 59.20.110.

I. Standard of Review

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Ass'n of Wash. Spirits

& Wine Distribs. v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 182 Wn.2d 342, 350, 340 P.3d 849

5 This calculation is based on a $10 increase to $385 in 2009 and a $10 increase to $395 in

2011.

3
             
Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, No. 90179-1

(2015). The court discerns legislative intent from the plain language enacted by the

legislature, considering the text of the provision in question, the context of the statute

in which the provision is found, related provisions, amendments to the provision, and

the statutory scheme as a whole. /d. (citing Oep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn,

LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)).