Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

176, 182-83, 15 P.3d 672 (2001). There is nothing inconsistent about requiring a

higher level of formality where a contract purports to abrogate this right.

There is no irreconcilable conflict between the MHL T A and the general

tenancy statute of frauds, and nowhere does the MHL TA contain an explicit or

implicit exemption. Under accepted principles of statutory interpretation, the

statute of frauds applies to MHTLA leases and the analysis should end. In the

interest of comprehensiveness, however, I note that the result compelled by the

plain language is also supported by other sources of legislative intent.

B. The legislature rejected an exemption from the statute of frauds

The legislative history unquestionably supports a holding that MHL TA

leases are not exempt from the general tenancy statute of frauds. When we

interpret statutes, "the legislature is presumed to be aware of its past legislation and

judicial interpretations thereof." In reMarriage of Little, 96 Wn.2d 183, 189-90,

634 P .2d 498 (1981 ). But in this case, we need not merely presume that the

legislature was aware of the existing statute of frauds when it drafted the

MHL TA-the relevant legislative history proves it was.

5
             
Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, No. 90179-1
Yu, J. (dissenting)

An early version of the MHLTA proposed by the House ofRepresentatives

would have added a section to chapter 59.04 RCW, making it inapplicable to

MHLTA leases. 1 HOUSE JOURNAL, 45th Leg., 1st Ex. Sess., at 1126, 1131 (Wash.

1977); 1 SENATEJOURNAL, 45th Leg., lstEx. Sess., at 1637,1645 (Wash. 1977);

see also RCW 59.04.900 ("This chapter does not apply to any rental agreement