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

therefore vacate the judgment on these awards and remand the issue so that the

trial court can properly award damages for repair costs and $100 per day for each

day of lost rent, if any, based on the controlling legal standard set forth above and

in RCW 59.18.130(10).

Finally, Tenants claim that the award of $800 for lost rent also is untenable

because Hoskins collected rent from a prospective tenant for a period that included

September 1-8 and then refunded some of that rent and retained $1,297.

Addressing this issue, the trial court explained that Hoskins was unable to rent the

unit for 22 days, which would have supported a damages award of $2,200, but it

awarded only $800. The difference between these two figures is $1,400, which is

more than the amount ($1,297) that Hoskins retained from the rent paid by the

prospective tenant. While the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard for

determining liability—as the above discussion shows—it appropriately analyzed

Hoskins’ alleged damages and may elect to do so again at the conclusion of the

litigation.
-15-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/16

E. Attorney fees on appeal

Both parties request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to RAP 18.1. Tenants

argue that they are entitled to attorney fees under SMC 7.24.060, while Hoskins

seeks attorney fees under the parties’ lease. This court has repeatedly held that

“[w]here both parties prevail on major issues, neither is entitled to attorney fees.”

Sardam v. Morford, 51 Wn. App. 908, 911, 756 P.2d 174 (1988). Here, as in

Sardam, both parties have prevailed on major issues, so neither is entitled to

recover prevailing party attorney fees on appeal.

III