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

1,413 chars

that this was "'especially true where, as here, an infant is in the home.'" CP at 85. The

trial court also stated that Pham "had a responsibility to take all reasonable measures to

keep rats from the unit, which he failed to do." |g\ But the trial court's written findings

show that its conclusion was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the

sewage leak, the rats, the odors, the faulty handrails, the holes in the floor, and Pham's

failure to remedy any of the conditions.5 A written order controls over any apparent

inconsistency with the court's earlier oral ruling. Shellenbarqer v. Briqman, 101 Wn.

App. 339, 346, 3 P.3d 211 (2000). Accordingly, we reject Pham's argument that the trial
court relied on an improper standard of habitability when it concluded that he breached

the implied warranty of habitability.

Award of Relocation Assistance

Pham argues that the trial court erred in finding that the Tenants were entitled to
relocation assistance under RCW 59.18.085(3). Pham's first argument is one of

statutory interpretation. He argues that the Tenants are not entitled to relocation
assistance because the City never issued a "notice of condemnation, eviction or

displacement order." Br. of Appellant at 17. The Tenants argue thatan order is not
required because the obligation to provide relocation assistance arose when Pham was
notified that the dwelling was unlawful.