Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 901791.pdf

included under the provisions of chapter 59.18 RCW."). That section did not

become part ofthe MHLTA as ultimately enacted. We must recognize that the

legislature was aware of the statute of frauds, considered its application, and chose

not to exempt MHL T A leases.

C. Applying the statute of frauds does not undermine the purposes of the
MHLTA

Finally, I cannot hold that as a matter of law, applying the statute of frauds

violates the purposes of the MHL T A. In many situations, it will in fact advance

those purposes.

The MHL T A, like many statutes, serves more than one purpose. Little

Mountain Estates Tenants Ass 'n v. Little Mountain Estates MHC, LLC, 169 Wn.2d

265, 270, 236 P.3d 193 (2010). It protects tenants who require a stable, low-cost

housing option, specifically including elderly and disabled individuals. !d. (citing

RCW 59.22.01 0(2)). It also ensures that such housing exists in the first place by

making it "economically feasible" to provide it-after all, if it were economically

unfeasible to operate a mobile or manufactured home park where the MHL TA

6
             
Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, No. 90179-1
Yu, J. (dissenting)

applies, few people would be able to benefit from its protections. Id. Both

purposes could be severely undermined by making every specific provision of

every MHL T A lease enforceable in perpetuity without the formality-particularly

as applied to this case, acknowledged signatures-required for all other long-term

encumbrances on real property.

From the perspective of economic feasibility for landlords, the statute of

frauds provides stability by ensuring the enforceability of formalized, long-term