Feigenbaum raises a factual dispute that the trial court resolved in favor of Hall.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings.
Feigenbaum also argues that Hall's service of a 3-day notice to pay or
vacate, when the lease required 20 days' notice of default before a legal action
could be filed, invalidated service and precluded the trial court from obtaining
personal or subject matter jurisdiction. He relies on Community Investments. Ltd.
v. Safeway Stores, Inc..20 where the plaintiff landlord served the commercial
tenant with a 10-day notice when the lease required 20 days' notice to cure any
default. This reliance is misplaced. In Community Investments, what the court
19 See 17 William B. Stoebuck & John W. Weaver, Washington
Practice: Real Estate: Property Law § 6.80, at 441 (2d ed. 2004) ("RCWA
59.12.040 is quite explicit about the manner of serving notice. . . . [I]f service
cannot be made by the first method, or if either step of the second method
cannot be accomplished, then the person serving notice should affix a copy in a
'conspicuous place' on the premises; hand a copy to any person 'there residing' if
such a person is present; and mail a copy to the tenant at the demised
premises.").
20 36 Wn. App. 34, 36-37, 671 P.2d 289 (1983).
-8-
No. 68727-1-1 (consol. with
No. 68927-4-1) / 9
found improper was not the form of the notice but the insufficient waiting period:
the landlord commenced a legal action 19 days after giving notice.21
First Union Management. Inc. v. Slack22 is on point. In First Union,
defendant tenants contended that their landlord's 3-day notice was improper