was not some sort of legal deficiency in the unlawful detainer action that would have
caused confusion to Ms. Parker. But an eviction premised on a misleading notice to
3
It is worth noting that an OLD provides only a narrow form of relief. An OLD
does not vacate any prior court orders. Nor does it seal from public view the contents of
prior unlawful detainer proceedings. Nothing in the OLD statute limits a landlord’s ability
to ask prospective tenants about whether they have ever been the subject of an unlawful
detainer action. The statute merely operates to limit the use of prior unlawful detainer
information in a service provider’s tenant screening report. See RCW 59.18.367(3).
The limited impact of an OLD allows trial judges space to grant relief to a tenant without
infringing on a prospective landlord’s right to information. Cf. Hundtofte v. Encarnación,
181 Wn.2d 1, 4, 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (plurality opinion) (prohibiting superior court from
redacting the names of defendants in meritless unlawful detainer action given the public’s
interest in the open administration of the courts).
11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 39089-6-III
Hous. Auth. v. Parker
vacate would be an eviction of dubious legality. See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d
365, 372, 173 P.3d 228 (2007) (Proper notice to a tenant is a condition precedent to the
superior court’s exercise of jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer case.); IBF, LLC v. Heuft,
141 Wn. App. 624, 632, 174 P.3d 95 (2007) (Notice is improper if it “deceive[s] or
mislead[s]” [a] tenant.). This would implicate subsection (a) of the OLD statute, which
allows for an order of limited dissemination when an eviction was issued “without basis