Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 829769.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 829769.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,206 chars
provides for attorney costs and fees and double damages if the violation is willful. Id. at

548-49; RCW 59.18.280(2). The RLTA also contains an anti-waiver provision,

prohibiting leases from contracting away the rights established by the statute. RCW

59.18.230(1). These provisions all “demonstrate the importance of statutes that impose

strict obligations and meaningful remedies to hold landlords accountable to respecting

tenants’ rights.” Silver, 197 Wn.2d at 548. Such protections are “especially critical for

renters experiencing poverty, for whom the security deposit and other moving expenses

often exceed monthly income.” Id. at 547.

Against this legal backdrop, Gebreseralse argues that the RLTA prohibits

provisions that require tenants to forfeit the security deposit if they abandon a lease.

She claims that forfeiture of the security deposit is improperly imposed as a remedy for

abandonment of the lease outside the statutorily permissible remedies provided by the

RLTA. We agree.

The RLTA establishes specific remedies available to the landlord when a tenant

abandons the lease:

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 82976-9-I/9