Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

begins with a presumption in favor of the trial court's findings and the appellant has the
burden ofshowing that a finding offact is not supported by substantial evidence. Green
v. Normandy Park Riviera Section Comm. Club, Inc., 137 Wn. App. 665, 689, 151 P.3d

1038 (2007). Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. Cowiche Canyon
Conservancy v. Boslev, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Conclusions of law

are reviewed de novo. Heqwine, 132 Wn. App. at 556 (citing Sunnvside Vallev Irrigation

Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 880, 73 P.3d 369 (2003)).

Counterclaims in an Unlawful Detainer Action

Pham argues that the Tenants cannot bring counterclaims for relocation
assistance and for damages for breach of implied warranty of habitability in an unlawful
             
No. 70956-9-1/6

detainer proceeding.3 The Tenants argue that these claims are equitable defenses that

directly relate to the issue of possession, and if proven, would excuse a breach of lease.

Pham correctly cites the rule that counterclaims are not allowed in unlawful

detainer actions, except for those "'based on facts that would excuse a tenant's

breach.'" Br. of Appellant at 19, (quoting Josephinium Assoc, v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App.

617, 625, 45 P.3d 627 (2002). The exception properly applies when resolution of the

counterclaim is "necessary to determine the right of possession." First Union Mgmt, Inc.

v. Slack, 36 Wn. App. 849, 854, 679 P.2d 936 (1984).

Under this exception, Washington courts have permitted counterclaims for

breach of warranty of habitability and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. See

Foisv v. Wvman, 83 Wn.2d 22, 32, 515 P.2d 160 (1973); Income Props. Inv. Corp. v.