Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,706 chars
commencing an unlawful detainer action. Sherwood Auburn has availed itself of

the “substantial financial benefits” of a federally backed mortgage loan, but does

not wish to comply with the additional requirements imposed by Congress on

landlords that have accepted such benefits. Our state’s RLTA explicitly provides

that federal law may require greater notice than that required by state law. RCW

59.18.057(3). Indeed, tenant protections provided by federal law, such as the

CARES Act notice requirement, “are properly considered as limitations to our

state’s unlawful detainer statute.” Indigo, 169 Wn. App. at 423. Thus, pursuant

to the plain language of § 9058(c), landlords subject to the CARES Act by virtue

of their acceptance of certain federal financial benefits must provide a 30-day

notice to pay or vacate to tenants residing in “covered dwellings.”

10
Washington courts have repeatedly held that when a tenant is entitled to more notice
than that provided by the unlawful detainer statute, a landlord can commence an unlawful
detainer action only after affording the greater notice period. “When a tenant contracts with his
landlord for a notice period longer than the statutory period, he is entitled to the full time stated
just as he is under the statute.” Cmty. Invs., Ltd. v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 36 Wn. App. 34, 38,
671 P.2d 289 (1983) (holding that unlawful detainer action could not be sustained when landlord
filed the action 19 days after providing notice of default when the lease provided a 20-day
opportunity to cure). See also Heuft, 141 Wn. App. at 629, 633 (vacating judgment against tenant
when landlord provided less than the 10-day notice required by the lease).