Similar to the URLTA, the RLTA includes some provisions that protect
landlords’ interests, but it also maximizes their obligations, “aspir[ing] to protect
tenants’ rights by creating incentives for landlords to improve the quality of rental
housing.” Christopher W. Sullivan, Forgotten Lessons from the Common Law, the
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, and the Holdover Tenant, 84 WASH.
U. L. REV. 1287, 1312 (2006). The new regulations in the area of landlord-tenant
law displaced several common law rules in an effort to balance the bargaining
positions between landlord and tenant in residential leasing—most notably by
placing affirmative duties on the landlord, such as the warranty of habitability, and
by treating many of the parties’ obligations as interdependent. See RCW 59.18.060;
URLTA (1972) § 1.102 cmt., 7B U.L.A. at 277-78; Thomas Bothwell, Comment,
Washington Tenant Remedies and the Consumer Protection Act, 10 GONZ. L. REV.
559, 559 (1975).
Security deposits were among the matters of residential leasing subject to new
and significant regulation under Washington’s RLTA. The RLTA imposed new
requirements in order for the landlord to hold any of the tenant’s moneys as a deposit
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
No. 98024-1
or as security for the performance of the tenant’s obligations. See William B.
Stoebuck, The Law Between Landlord and Tenant in Washington: Part II, 49 WASH.
L. REV. 1013, 1032 (1974) (“Clearly these provisions were a response to complaints
that landlords were wrongfully retaining damage and security deposits, which has
probably been the most frequent form of landlord-tenant dispute.”). For example, a