(1983)). As the essential facts are undisputed, we treat them as verities and apply
de novo review. See State v. Escalante, 195 Wn.2d 526, 531, 461 P.3d 1183
(2020) (citing State v. Lorenz, 152 Wn.2d 22, 30, 36, 93 P.3d 133 (2004)).
The CDC order applies unless a local jurisdiction provides “the same or
greater level of public-health protection.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 34,015. This must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The parties agree that Washington’s eviction
proclamation does not protect Hanley from eviction, as a landlord may evict a
resident with advance written notice in order to sell or personally move into a unit.
But if the tenant is a “covered person,” the CDC order would prevent such an
eviction. Because the CDC order is more protective in that context, it would apply.
Accordingly, unless Hanley is exempted from the CDC order, he cannot be
evicted.
The CDC order temporarily prevents evictions of “covered persons” unless
they fall under the following exclusions:
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Nyman v. Hanley, No. 99249-5
Nothing in this Order precludes evictions based on a tenant, lessee, or
resident: (1) Engaging in criminal activity while on the premises; (2)
threatening the health or safety of other residents; (3) damaging or posing an
immediate and significant risk of damage to property; (4) violating any
applicable building code, health ordinance, or similar regulation relating to
health and safety; or (5) violating any other contractual obligation, other
than the timely payment of rent or similar housing-related payment
(including non-payment or late payment of fees, penalties, or interest).
Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). The parties agree that Hanley’s lease