Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,417 chars

1
The security deposit was carried over from the plaintiffs’ initial lease.
2
In the letter, plaintiffs noted that TAG Realty rescinded its initial charge for the blind.
3
The record shows that the firm started billing for work for the plaintiffs in July 2023.
2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/3

In August TAG Realty sent an email to the Cromars offering to refund the

balance of the security deposit to avoid litigation. The email does not reference TAG

Realty’s obligations under the RLTA or offer to compensate the Cromars for any legal

fees or costs incurred.

In September the Cromars brought a putative class action complaint against TAG

Realty for claims under the RLTA and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA),

chapter 19.86 RCW. As part of their class claims, the Cromars alleged that TAG Realty

withheld their and other tenants’ security deposits based on an unlawful lease

agreement provision in violation of the RLTA. Additionally, they alleged that the lease

provision “allowing a deposit to be forfeited is an unfair or deceptive act or practice” in

violation of the CPA. They also raised individual RLTA and CPA claims against

defendant Bohmann & Co., LLC (Bohmann), who allegedly owned the rental house that

the Cromars lived at.

In their complaint, the Cromars requested certification under CR 23 for two

proposed classes: