defenses or setoffs the account debtor may have against the creditor/assignor); 3
Nancy’s Prod., Inc. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 61 Wn. App. 645, 650, 811 P.2d 250 (1991)
3
This general rule is subject to an exception when the debtor’s representation or conduct
may amount to equitable estoppel preventing assertion of defenses against the assignee that
would otherwise be available against the assignor. Nelson v. Bailey, 54 Wn.2d 161, 168, 338 P.2d
757 (1959); Pacific Nw. Life Ins. Co., 51 Wn. App. at 700. CDR does not raise the issue of
equitable estoppel.
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 82976-9-I/6
(“[W]hen setoff is asserted against an assignee, it diminishes or defeats the assignee’s
claim.”). As the assignee of the landlord’s claims, CDR is subject to both the rights and
defenses applicable to the landlord. Thus, Gebreseralse’s claim is properly asserted
against CDR.
II. Forfeiture of the Security Deposit
Gebreseralse argues that the superior court improperly reversed the district court
and erred by refusing to credit her $1,400 security deposit against the $4,750 assessed
against her for early termination of her lease. This court’s review of a superior court
decision reviewing a district court decision is governed by RALJ 9.1(e). State v. Jim,
156 Wn. App. 39, 41, 230 P.3d 1080 (2010). The appellate court “review[s] the district
court’s decision to determine whether that court committed any errors of law, accepting
its factual determinations that are supported by substantial evidence and reviewing
alleged errors of law de novo.” Id. at 41. The district court granted summary judgment,
and we review orders on summary judgment de novo. Kim v. Lakeside Adult Family