allow for a period of time in which the tenant may cure the alleged breach or
vacate the premises. See RCW 59.12.030(3); see also Christensen, 162 Wn.2d
at 371 (noting that “[t]he purpose of the notice is to provide the tenant with ‘at
least one opportunity to correct a breach before forfeiture of a lease under the
accelerated restitution provisions of RCW 59.12’” (quoting Terry, 114 Wn.2d at
569)). Indeed, only after the proper notice is provided and the cure period has
expired can the tenant be said to be unlawfully detaining the premises. See
Indigo Real Est. Servs., Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wn. App. 412, 421, 280 P.3d 506
(2012) (“Once a tenant is in the status of unlawful detainer, the landlord may
commence an unlawful detainer action by serving a summons and complaint.”).
Only then can the landlord avail itself of the superior court’s authority to enforce
the provisions of a lease agreement. Henry-Levingston, 196 Wn. App. at 699
(recognizing that “[a] trial court cannot grant relief in an unlawful detainer action
when a landlord has failed to comply with the relevant [notice provisions]”).
If the CARES Act provision simply prevented the eviction of tenants for 30
days following notice, without providing tenants the ability to cure the breach or
vacate the premises during that period, the notice provision would be rendered
meaningless. In Washington, where our state’s unlawful detainer statute
provides for a 14-day pay or vacate notice in residential tenancies, a landlord
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 84119-0-I/10
subject to the CARES Act would nevertheless be permitted to commence an
unlawful detainer action after 14 days. Thus, the CARES Act would provide no