provided any authority indicating that the Landlords were required to disclose this
type of specific information. We conclude that the Landlords included sufficient
facts to support their reason for terminating the tenancy in the notice because the
language complied with the requirements stated in SMC 22.206.160(C)(1)(e) and
SMC 22.206.160(C)(3).
The Tenants also claim that the Landlords did not have just cause to
terminate the tenancy because of conflicting information about Faciszewski's
mother's plans. However, the Tenants have only demonstrated that they do not
believe the Landlords' stated reason for terminating the tenancy, not that the
Landlords did not carry out the stated reason.
In Housing Authority v. Silva,35 the landlord commenced an unlawful
detainer action alleging that the tenant had habitually failed to comply with his
lease obligations by causing four disturbances over a 3.5-year period. To
terminate the tenancy for just cause, the landlord had to serve the tenant with
35 94 Wn. App. 731, 736, 972 P.2d 952 (1999).
-11-
NO. 72611-1-1/12
three 10-day notices within a 12-month period.36 The landlord only provided two
10-day notices within the 12-month period.37 This court held that the landlord
failed to prove just cause for eviction.38
Unlike the landlord in Silva, the Landlords here could not carry out the
stated reason for eviction because the Tenants did not vacate the rental property.
In Silva, the tenant could point to a specific way in which the landlord did not
meet the just cause requirement. Here, the Tenants can only point to a parking
dispute involving the neighbors and background information about Faciszewski's