Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

and so is personal to the former park owner. See 1515-1519 Lakeview Boulevard

Condo. Ass'n v. Apt. Sales Corp., 146 Wn.2d 194, 202, 43 P.3d 1233 (2002). A

provision that burdens land use in a way that limits the rights normally associated with

ownership touches and concerns the land. !d. at 203-04. The MHLTA applies only to

the lease of mobile home lots rather than leases of mobile homes themselves. RCW

59.20.040. Thus, MHLTA leases relate to land use. The rent cap provision in Tison's

11Because we hold that Tison's lease satisfied the requirements of the MHLTA, we do not
consider Western Plaza's argument that the rent cap provision keeps this lease from being
completed within a year.

15
             
Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, No. 90179-1

lease clearly limits the rights normally associated with ownership of a mobile home

park. See RCW 59.20.090(2). Tison's rent cap provision does touch and concern the

land; it is therefore enforceable against Western Plaza.

V. Attorney Fees

Tison requested attorney fees on appeal in compliance with RAP 18.1. Both the

MHLTA and the lease provide that the "prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable

attorney's fees and costs." RCW 59.20.110; see also CP at 32. Tison is the prevailing

party, and she is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal.

/d.

CONCLUSION

Properly executed rent cap provisions such as Tison's are permissible under

the MHLTA. Further, the writing and signatures on her lease satisfy the statute of

frauds applicable to rental agreements for mobile home lots under RCW 59.20.060.

We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings