14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 84119-0-I/15
III
Pinzon and Mendez further assert that the notices provided by Sherwood
Auburn were misleading and contradictory and, thus, that the superior court was
without authority to determine that they were unlawfully detaining the premises.
We agree.
A
In Washington, when nonpayment of rent is alleged, a tenant is liable for
unlawful detainer only after the landlord provides notice of the alleged default and
the requisite period to cure that default has expired. RCW 59.12.030(3). The
notice period provides a tenant “with an opportunity to correct a breach before
the commencement of an unlawful detainer proceeding.” Christensen, 162
Wn.2d at 377. “The provisions governing the time and manner of bringing an
unlawful detainer action are to be strictly construed.” Cmty. Invs., Ltd. v.
Safeway Stores, Inc., 36 Wn. App. 34, 37-38, 671 P.2d 289 (1983). Moreover,
the notice “must . . . be sufficiently particular and certain so as not to deceive or
mislead.” Heuft, 141 Wn. App. at 632.
A landlord that commences an unlawful detainer action after providing
inadequately clear notice may not “avail itself of the superior court’s jurisdiction.”
Hous. Auth. of City of Seattle v. Bin, 163 Wn. App. 367, 374, 260 P.3d 900
(2011). This is because, until the notice requirements are met, the tenant cannot
be said to be unlawfully detaining the premises. RCW 59.12.030(3); see also
Indigo, 169 Wn. App. at 421. Thus, when notice is deficient, the landlord cannot
prove a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Terry, 114 Wn.2d at 563-64
15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 84119-0-I/16