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

1,197 chars

personal property, which the landlord holds in trust as security for the tenant’s

performance under the lease. 15 17 STOEBUCK & WEAVER, supra, at 397-401. The

landlord cannot withhold the deposit absent the tenant’s breach. In order to retain

any portion of the deposit for excessive damage beyond ordinary wear and tear, the

landlord must provide a full and specific statement within 14 days, see supra note 3,

after vacation. RCW 59.18.280(1)(a). Thus, if the tenant causes only ordinary wear

and tear to the premises, the tenant has not breached their duty, and they are entitled

to a full refund of their deposit.

This is Silver’s theory of the case: he claims that he was not responsible for

any excessive wear and tear to the premises. 16 He also claims that Rudeen is liable

to refund two times the full amount of the deposit because it intentionally refused to

provide the statement and any refund due to Silver within 14 days after he vacated

the premises. If the claim is permitted to move forward, the parties may dispute

whether either of Rudeen’s deposit statements satisfied the full and specific

statement requirement and whether the alleged damage to the premises was