parents to question the Landlords' sincerity. Although the Tenants may doubt
this sincerity, to defend the unlawful detainer action, the Tenants must prove that
the Landlords did not comply with Seattle's ordinance. They have not raised any
substantial material question of fact about compliance.
The Tenants assert that the information they presented to the trial court at
least raised a question of fact about the Landlords' just cause because the
claimed immediate family member did not intend to move in. However, the
Tenants' reliance on the evidence they presented is misplaced.
With SMC 22.206.160, the city provides tenants added protections not
available to them under Washington law.39 The city has adopted substantive
36 Silya, 94 Wn. App. at 736.
37 Sjjva, 94 Wn. App. at 736.
38 Silya, 94 Wn. App. at 736.
39 Ch. 59.18 RCW, Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973.
-12-
NO. 72611-1-1/13
provisions and procedures applicable to the eviction process and safeguards to
ensure landlord compliance.40 The city also has provided remedies for a tenant
who questions the landlord's intent or compliance with Seattle's ordinance.41 The
tenant can demand a certification of the reason for termination. The landlord's
failure to provide the certification provides a defense to an eviction action. The
landlord's failure to carry out the reason stated in the certification provides the
tenant with a claim for damages up to $2,000. We decline the Tenants' request
that we rewrite the ordinance to provide another remedy.
Seattle's ordinance reflects policy decisions made by its legislative body.
The Tenants make policy arguments for an additional remedy that body did not