Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726111.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726111.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,797 chars
RCW 59.12.040 implies that (1), (2), and (3) are equal alternatives for notice.14

In Hall v. Feigenbaum,15 the landlord posted a three-day notice to pay rent or

vacate at the unlawfully held premises. The landlord also mailed a copy to that

address, even though he knew the commercial tenant was no longer doing

13 Leda, 150 Wn. App. at 85.
14 Hall, 178 Wn. App. at 820.
15 178 Wn. App. 811, 816, 820, 319 P.3d 61 (2014).
-6-
             

NO. 72611-1-1/7

business at that location.16 The tenant in Hall argued that service was insufficient

because the landlord knew his home address but did not mail the notice there.17

This court held that service of the notice was proper because the tenant did not

provide evidence that he provided the landlord with his home address.18

Here, the Tenants contend the Landlords did not properly serve the notice

because they were home when Faciszewski taped it to their door. Faciszewski

stated in his declaration of service, "I attempted to deliver a copy of said Notice

into the hands of the defendants but was unable to do so." Tenants offer no

evidence challenging the truth of this statement. Instead, in their respective

declarations, they state, "While we were home on June 29, 2014, Mr.

Faciszewski taped a notice of termination on our door," and nothing more. They

make no claim that Faciszewski did not take some action to attempt service

before taping the notice on it. They cite no authority supporting their claim that

Faciszewski needed to provide greater detail in his declaration of service about

his attempt.

Accepting the Tenants' argument would allow a tenant to refuse to answer

the door and completely avoid service. The Tenants do not reconcile their view