Landlords' motion. Tenants contended that Landlords had not met their burden of
proving that just cause exists because Landlords submitted only the sworn certification
of intent. Tenants requested that they be able to engage in more fact-finding, such as
requiring declarations, depositions, or interrogatories. The court granted Landlords'
-4-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Faciszewski, et al. v. Brown, et al., 92978-5
motion to revise, issued a writ of restitution, and struck the trial date. In so doing, the
court stated, "[A]s I read 22.206.160, it ends with this statement under penalty of
perjury.... [T]he statutory scheme does not require or even permit a trial once we
have this statement under penalty of perjury." VTP (Sept. 2, 2014) at 22-23
(referring to SMC 22.206.160(C)(4). The superior court subsequently entered
judgment against Tenants, awarded Landlords attorney fees and costs, and denied
'
Tenants' motion for reconsideration.
Tenants appealed, and Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held
that under the Seattle ordinance:
If a tenant does not believe a landlord's stated reason for eviction, that tenant
can file a complaint with the city. The tenant's disbelief, even if justified, does
not provide a defense to an unlawful detainer action. Once the landlord files the
proper certification with the city [pursuant to SMC 22.206.160(C)(4)], the
tenant's remedy is limited to a private right of action [pursuant to SMC
22.206.160(C)(7)] if the landlord does not fulfill the stated reason for eviction.
Faciszewski v. Brown, 192 Wn. App. 441, 453-54, 367 P.3d 1085 (2016) (footnote
omitted).
Tenants filed a petition for review in this court, challenging both this holding