provide. They ask for the right to contest the truthfulness of the certification in
the unlawful detainer action. The city's legislative body has the authority to
consider this policy choice. That authority does not belong to this court, whose
fundamental function is review of lower court decisions.42
Because the Tenants did not believe the Landlords, they sought the
remedy provided by SMC 22.206.160(C)(4). Faciszewski filed the proper
certification with the city. After Faciszewski filed the certification, Seattle's
40 SMC 22.206.160(C).
41 SMC 22.206.160(C)(4), (7).
42 Hale v. Wellpinit Sch. Dist. No. 49, 165 Wn.2d 494, 505, 198 P.3d 1021
(2009).
-13-
NO. 72611-1-1/14
ordinance provided the Tenants with an exclusive remedy for a false certification,
a private action for damages up to $2,000.43
Unlawful detainer actions are summary proceedings.44 If a tenant does
not believe a landlord's stated reason for eviction, that tenant can file a complaint
with the city.45 The tenant's disbelief, even if justified, does not provide a
defense to an unlawful detainer action. Once the landlord files the proper
certification with the city, the tenant's remedy is limited to a private right of action
if the landlord does not fulfill the stated reason for eviction.46
Damages
The Tenants contend that they do not owe any unpaid rent. The Tenants
sent a check for the August 2014 rent after it was due. The Landlords rejected
the payment. On revision, the trial court concluded that the Tenants owed the
Landlords unpaid rent. RCW 59.18.290(2) states,