Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 980241.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 980241.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/980241.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

947 chars

The opportunities for abuses in the determination of the amount
of sec[]urity deposit to be returned to the tenant highlight the need for
swift procedural remedies. In many cases the amount in controversy
will prevent one from going to court. For example, a tenant might feel
that he was entitled to $20 of the security deposit, but he might feel that
$20 might be less than what it would cost him in time and trouble to go
to court. . . . If a simple procedure could be provided to insure swift and
just results, these petty injustices might be avoided.

Subcomm. on the Model Landlord-Tenant Act of Comm. on Leases, Proposed

Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, 8 REAL PROP., PROB. & TR. J. 104,

110 (1973).11 This is especially critical for renters experiencing poverty, for whom

the security deposit and other moving expenses often exceed monthly income.

Kathryn A. Sabbeth, (Under)Enforcement of Poor Tenants’ Rights, 1 GEO. J. ON