Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 47696-7-II Published Opinion.pdf

Kimbra to vacate the apartment.

Kimbra filed an answer in which she asserted affirmative defenses and moved to dismiss

the complaint. She acknowledged that the initial term of the lease was from January 10 to

December 31, 2014. But her affirmative defense stated that the lease terms and federal law

required that her lease automatically renew. Kimbra also moved to dismiss on the ground that

Housing Kitsap failed to allow her to cure her alleged lease violations as required by RCW

59.12.030(4). The trial court denied this motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.

After an expedited bench trial, the trial court ruled that Kimbra had in fact violated the

terms of her lease. The trial court entering findings of fact that (1) Kimbra’s lease expired on

December 31, 2014 and would have automatically renewed if it had not been terminated for

material breaches of the lease; (2) Kimbra violated the lease terms by improperly allowing

Levingston to stay with her and failing to pay her utilities; (3) Housing Kitsap terminated

Kimbra’s lease under federal law by giving notice and an opportunity for a hearing; (4) because

of the termination the lease did not renew and the lease and tenancy expired on December 31,

2014; and (5) on January 1, 2015 Kimbra was in unlawful detainer of the property. The trial

court concluded that Housing Kitsap was entitled to possession and an award of reasonable

attorney fees.

Kimbra appeals the trial court’s decision.

5
             

No. 47696-7-II

ANALYSIS

Kimbra argues that under 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(1), her lease renewed automatically even

after Housing Kitsap terminated the lease. Therefore, she claims that Housing Kitsap had to file