Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/709569.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,530 chars

that the Property must be brought into compliance or the City would require him to pay

relocation assistance of $2,000.2 The letter also advised Pham that multiple repairs

would be required before permitting the Unit, and that the sewage leak would need to

be repaired immediately.

On June 6, 2013, Bradrick sent Pham a third letter listing specific repairs that

needed to be done in order to obtain a permit and pass a housing inspection. These

repairs included the sewage leak, the absence of a P-trap in the vanity drain under the
bathroom sink, and the rodent access to the crawl space and bedroom closet. The letter

again instructed Pham that if he did not make the necessary repairs, he would need to
discontinue renting the Unit and pay $2,000 in relocation assistance. Pham hired an
architect to work on permitting the Property for use as a five-plex. At the time oftrial,
because Pham was still waiting to find out whether such use would be permittable, none

of the other repairs had been made.

A bench trial was held on July 17, 2013. The parties presented testimony from

five witnesses: Pham, Eric Bittenbender from Paratex Pest Control, Bradrick, Morgan,

and Corbett. The trial court found that the Unit's habitability had been reduced by

twenty-five percent for the nine-month period in which the Tenants lived with the sewer
and rodent issues. The trial court determined that the Tenants had overpaid rent for that
period, but also that they owed rent because they remained in the Unit for two additional