Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850318.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,537 chars

that “lessor” meant lessor and reversed and remanded the matter. Pinzon, 24

Wn. App. 2d at 672-76, 681-82 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1)).

Pinzon does not resolve the matter before us. Nowhere in that opinion did

we set forth a holding that the CARES Act requires 30 days’ notice to vacate in

3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/4

all eviction actions in dwellings covered by the Act. Moreover, the tenants

therein had received the notices to vacate arising from their nonpayment of rent,

and the extent of our interpretation of the CARES Act was whether a “lessor” was

a lessor under the Act.

In contrast, the notice to vacate herein stemmed from the Knights’ alleged

nuisance and criminal conduct on the premises, and we are tasked with

interpreting whether the Act requires 30 days’ notice for all eviction actions

regarding a dwelling covered by the Act. Thus, we plainly did not decide in

Pinzon the matter now before us. Accordingly, by so relying on that opinion to

dismiss the Housing Authority’s unlawful detainer action herein, the superior

court commissioner erred. 5 However, because Pinzon does not resolve the

matter before us, we next look for guidance from the text of the CARES Act itself.

III

The Housing Authority asserts that the CARES Act requires 30 days’

notice only for evictions stemming from nonpayment of rent. The Housing

Authority is correct.

5 We note that we repeatedly stated in Pinzon that the Act’s 30-day notice provision