Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

Pham argues that "the legislative history" supports his interpretation and at oral

argument, cited RCW 59.18.085, Historical and Statutory Notes. But the notes, titled
"Purpose" are consistent with our reading of the statute's plain language. The notes

read:

Certain tenants in the state of Washington have remained in rental
housing that does not meet the state's minimum standards for health
and safety because they cannot afford to pay the costs of relocation
in advance of occupying new, safe, and habitable housing. In
egregious cases, authorities have been forced to condemn property
when landlords have failed to remedy building code or health code
violations after repeated notice, and, as a result, families with limited
financial resources have been displaced and left with nowhere to go.

Subsection 3(a) addresses the first issue oftenants being forced to stay in substandard
housing by requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance. Subsections (3)(c), (f), (g),
and (h) were enacted for the "egregious cases," where a landlord has notice and has
refused to pay relocation assistance, and a governing authority is forced to condemn

the property.

13
             
No. 70956-9-1/14

Based on the language of the statute, we find that if RCW 59.18.085(3)(a)

applies, a landlord is required to pay relocation assistance if the building will be

condemned or deemed unlawful to occupy. In this circumstance, it is irrelevant whether

the landlord has received notice of an order of condemnation, eviction, or displacement.

Pham next argues that he was never notified that the unit will "be condemned" or

will "be unlawful to occupy." Br. of Appellant at 17. The Tenants argue that Pham