Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/389189_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,740 chars 
pursues any remedy under” the RLTA during that time period. The November 3 notice

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38918-9-III
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels

to comply or vacate stated Ms. Daniels was in violation of her lease obligations and gave

her 10 days to remedy her nonconformance. Thus, RCW 59.18.190 was applicable and

K&H was required to pursue a remedy within 60 days.

K&H argues it acted on the November 3 notice within 60 days because it issued a

notice to quit and vacate on December 27. K&H appears to claim that issuing a notice to

quit and vacate is a remedy under the RLTA. We disagree with this assessment.

A “remedy” is generally defined as something “a court can do for a litigant who

has been wronged.” DOUGLAS LAYCOCK & RICHARD L. HASEN, MODERN AMERICAN

REMEDIES: CASES AND MATERIALS 1 (5th ed. 2019). The most common remedies are

damages and injunctions. Id.; see also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1547 (11th ed. 2019)

(A “remedy” is a means of enforcing rights or redressing wrongs through legal or

equitable relief.).

Under the RLTA, the remedies a court may provide to a party include recovery

of possession, related damages, and attorney fees. See RCW 59.18.290. The RLTA

recognizes a landlord’s remedy to independently resolve certain tenant-caused defects

in a rental unit at cost to the tenant, so long as there has first been adequate notice.

See RCW 59.18.180(1). However, landlords are not authorized to engage in self-help

evictions. See Gray v. Pierce County Hous. Auth., 123 Wn. App. 744, 757, 97 P.3d 26

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38918-9-III
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels