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

1,091 chars

the date of physical eviction. See Radecki v. Joura, 114 F.3d 115, 116 (8th Cir. 1997);

Douglas, 884 A.2d at 1121 (“[A] reasonable accommodation defense will be timely until

the proverbial last minute.”). This is consistent with landlords’ obligation to reasonably

31
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

make accommodations to not only their “rules” but also their “policies, practices, or

services.” RCW 49.60.222(2)(b) (emphasis added); see Douglas, 884 A.2d at 1127.

We recognize that halting this unlawful detainer action would have imposed a

burden on K&H. 9 But those burdens should have been weighed—by a jury—against the

benefit to Ms. Daniels. See Josephinium Assocs., 111 Wn. App. at 623-24; Marthon v.

Maple Grove Condo. Ass’n, 101 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1051 (N.D. Ill. 2000).

For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Daniels has presented sufficient facts to allow

a jury to decide whether her requested accommodation was reasonable. This affirmative

defense was prematurely rejected.