Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,740 chars
Here, the Amicus suggests that, because subsection (c)(2) set forth a

prohibition on notices to vacate during the 120-day eviction moratorium but did

not expressly set forth therein a basis for eviction from which such notice could

issue, Congress intended that no notices to vacate could have been provided

during that moratorium. Furthermore, according to the Amicus, because

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/14

subsection (c)(1) required 30 days’ notice for evictions but also did not expressly

set forth a basis for eviction from which such notice could issue, Congress

intended that, after the moratorium ended, 30 days’ notice must be provided for

any eviction action.

The Amicus’s proposed interpretation is unpersuasive. As an initial

matter, such an interpretation would render subsection (b)—the 120-day

moratorium on evictions stemming from nonpayment of rent—entirely

superfluous. Pursuant to such an interpretation, if no notices to vacate could

issue during that moratorium, no unlawful detainer actions could be initiated.

This would have the effect of entirely precluding evictions from covered dwelling

units over a four-month period. If such was Congress’s intent, then it would not

have included subsection (b), nor limited the temporary eviction moratorium

therein to evictions stemming from nonpayment of rent. To read such a broad

intent into subsection (c) would thus render subsection (b) superfluous.

In addition, unlikely circumstances would result from the eviction actions

prohibited by such a broad interpretation. Starting with paragraph (c)(2)—

prohibiting the issuance of notices to vacate during the 120-day moratorium—the