Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

and were still in possession of the Unit at the time of trial in July 2013. Because the

Tenants did not make payment or payment arrangements for May 2013, Pham testified

that he posted and mailed a three-day pay or vacate notice on May 6, 2013, but the

Tenants denied receiving it.

On May 10, 2013, the Tenants filed a complaint with the City regarding the Unit's

conditions. Five days later, City housing and zoning inspector Tom Bradrick, inspected

the Unit. Bradrick found that "the overall quality of the installation of the unit was very

poor and would never have passed a building inspection at that time. . . ." VRP at 114.
On May 16, 2013, the day after the inspection, Pham served the Tenants with

anotherthree-day pay or vacate notice. The next day Bradrick mailed a Notice of
Violation to Pham's home address notifying him that the Property was not permitted for

use as a five-plex and that he needed to take corrective action by June 30, 2013.1
Pham testified that he did not receive this letter until May 22, 2013, five days later.

On Monday, May 20, 2013, Pham filed an unlawful detainer action to evict the
Tenants because they failed to comply with the May 16, 2013 pay or vacate notice.

1Under the Seattle Municipal Code, the City has the authority to issue a notice ofviolation that
identifies each violation of the standards and requirements of the Code and the corrective action
necessary to bring the building into compliance. SMC 22.206.220(A)(1). The Notice of Violation must also
specify a time for compliance. SMC 22.206.220(A)(2).
             
No. 70956-9-1/4

Bradrick sent a follow up letter on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, notifying Pham