Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 709569.pdf

received three letters informing him that the units were illegal. The record shows that

Pham received notice that the dwelling was unlawful to occupy because (1) it was

permitted only for use as a triplex, and (2) its condition was substandard and violated

multiple provisions of the housing code. The initial Notice of Violation states, in all caps,

that Pham must:

DISCONTINUE THE MAINTENANCE/USE OF 9312 51st AVE
SOUTH AS A FIVEPLEX OR OBTAIN A PERMIT AND FINAL
APPROVAL INSPECTION TO ESTABLISH THE USE. A FIVEPLEX
IS NOT THE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED USE OF THE PROPERTY;
THE CURRENT PERMITTED USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS AS A
TRIPLEX.

CP at 69. The second letter reads "[tjhe units will have to be legalized, under a permit,

or the tenants removed (you will have to pay them $2000 for tenant relocation

assistance) and the units shut down and never rented again until they are legalized,"
and that "multiple repairs will be needed to the lower unit if it is to be permitted." CP at
76. The final letter, dated June 6, 2013, indicated that there were numerous housing

violations that would need to be addressed before the building would be legal to rent.

Pham's contention that the City did not notify him that the dwelling "is unlawful to

occupy" is contradicted by the explicit text ofthe notice and letters. Br. of Appellant at

17.

14
             
No. 70956-9-1/15

Third, Pham argues that the statute and the Residential Landlord Tenant Act

(RLTA) provide him with opportunity to cure before being required to pay relocation

assistance. The Tenants argue that there is no cure period and to infer one would

defeat the statute's purpose, because landlords would take advantage of such period