termination and vacation, restore the premises to their initial condition except for
reasonable wear and tear or conditions caused by failure of the landlord to comply
with his or her obligations under this chapter.” Second, RCW 59.18.260 states, “No
such deposit shall be withheld on account of normal wear and tear resulting from
ordinary use of the premises.” And lastly, RCW 59.18.280(1)(a) likewise states,
10 The award of $800 is premised on section 13 of the lease, entitled “UNCLEAN/DAMAGED
CONDITIONS,” which states, “Should Lessee leave the apartment in an unclean or damaged
condition and Owner/Manager is unable to lease the apartment because of the condition, then
Lessee shall be liable for $100 for each day of lost rent.” While the standard for awarding this
amount improperly varies from the RLTA (as discussed in the text above), there is no argument
that $100 constitutes an unlawful penalty, presumably because it approximates the monthly rent.
-14-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/15
“No portion of any deposit shall be withheld on account of wear resulting from
ordinary use of the premises.”
Applying the plain language of the statute, the trial court was required by
the RLTA to determine whether Tenants failed to leave the leased premises (the
apartment, as defined in the lease and discussed above) in “their initial condition
except for reasonable wear and tear or conditions caused by failure of the landlord
to comply with his or her obligations under this chapter” and award recoverable
damages if and to the extent that Tenants failed to do so. Instead, the trial court
applied a “move-in condition” test, which erroneously varies from the RLTA. We