within the statutory period, they are liable for the full amount of the deposit. Former
RCW 59.18.280(2).
When deciding whether the exception to former RCW 59.18.280(2) applies, there
is no ambiguity as “[c]ircumstances are either beyond a landlord’s control or within a
landlord’s control.” Goodeill v. Madison Real Est., 191 Wn. App. 88, 101, 362 P.3d 302
(2015). Circumstances within a landlord’s control can be divided into active or passive
delays. Id. at 102. Active delays are when a landlord simply fails to promptly do
something, and passive delays are when a landlord permits an unreasonable delay by
another. Id.
In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Christensen, his
affidavit, dated August 30, 2021, reveals his health was very poor, he was not
ambulatory, and he was unable to leave his residence without the assistance of a health
care provider at the time his RCW 59.18.280 notice was due. Further, in his affidavit,
Mr. Christensen claims he mailed the security deposit reconciliation sheet within the
required 21 days.
Generally, when a party gives clear answers to unambiguous questions in a
deposition that negate the existence of any question of material fact, that party cannot
thereafter create such an issue with an affidavit that merely contradicts, without
explanation, previously given clear testimony. Cornish Coll. of Arts v. 1000 Va. Ltd.
14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 39271-6-III
Heston v. Christensen
P’ship, 158 Wn. App. 203, 227, 242 P.3d 1 (2010) (quoting Marshall v. AC&S, Inc.,
56 Wn. App. 181, 185, 782 P.2d 1107 (1989)).
Mr. Christensen’s affidavit contradicts his earlier deposition testimony. First,