Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 837346 orderanopinion.pdf

Addressing this issue, the trial court found “that the defendant Hoskins did not

violate the ordinance because the gardener did not go inside the unit; all the work

was done outside.”

We agree with the trial court’s analysis. The rental agreement here defines

the leased premises as “the apartment situated on the upper/main level of the

house at 5329 9th Ave. NE in the City of Seattle, County of King, State of

7 Tenants also claim that Hoskins violated SMC 7.24.060(A)(2), which states, “A landlord who

includes provisions prohibited by subsection 7.24.030.B, Section 7.24.035, Section 7.24.036, or
Section 7.24.038 in a new rental agreement, or in a renewal of an existing agreement, shall be
liable to the tenant for up to $3,000 plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.” Unlike SMC
7.24.060(A)(1), which requires an award of statutory damages, SMC 7.24.060(A)(2) requires proof
of actual damages and limits recovery of those damages to “up to $3,000.” The trial court found
that Tenants proved “no actual damages,” and its finding is supported by substantial evidence.
Thus, the trial court correctly denied recovery of both damages and attorney fees under SMC
7.24.060(A)(2). ]
-10-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/11

Washington.” Because the yard is not part of the housing unit or leased premises,

the gardener did not enter Tenants’ housing unit or premises and was not required

to give notice under SMC 22.206.180(F)(1)(a). The trial court correctly rejected this

claim.

C. Delivery of deposit statement

Tenants assert that Hoskins failed to comply with the RLTA requirement to

timely give them a security deposit statement when he e-mailed the statement to