notices within a 12-month period, while the ordinance required three notices. Silva,
94 Wn. App. at 736. Silva demonstrates that tenants can use the landlord's lack of
just cause as a defense in an eviction action. Beyond that, Silva does not help us
resolve the issue in the present case.
Tenants also direct us to New Jersey cases interpreting a similar New Jersey
state just cause eviction law. Pet. for Review at 11; Suppl. Br. ofPet'rs at 5-6. These
cases are not particularly helpful. Tenants primarily rely on Durruthy v. Brunert, in
which the court held that the owner of a building with two residential and two
commercial units could invoke a provision of New Jersey's Anti-Eviction Act
permitting the owner of a building "'of three residential units or less'" to evict a
tenant upon a showing that the owner '"seeks to personally occupy a unit."' 228
N.J. Super. 199, 200, 549 A.2d 456 (1988) (quoting N.J. STAT. ANN. 2A:l8-
6l.l(l)(3)). Durruthy interprets the meaning of"building of three residential units
or less," which has nothing to do with the issue in the present case. See id. at 201.
The only relevant portion of the case states that "the record before [the court] does
not justify" a finding that the owner intends to personally occupy the unit, as the
testimony was incomplete and "neither the witnesses nor counsel focused on the
factual question whether [the owners] had adequately proved their asserted bona fide
-12-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Faciszewski, et al. v. Brown, et al., 92978-5
intention to occupy" the unit. Id. at 203. Although this language parallels the
requirement under SMC 22.206.160(C)(1) that landlords must "prove in court that