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

an unlawful detainer action under RCW 59.12.030(1) without notice or an opportunity to cure.

1. Statutory Interpretation

Statutory interpretation is a matter of law that we review de novo. Jametsky v. Olsen,

179 Wn.2d 756, 761, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014). The objective in interpreting a federal statute is to

ascertain Congress’s intent. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Harrison, 181 Wn. App. 595,

10
             

No. 47696-7-II

602, 326 P.3d 808, review denied, 181 Wn.2d 1015 (2014). To determine legislative intent, we

first look to the plain language of the statute, considering the text of the provision, the context of

the statute, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. Gray v. Suttell & Assocs.,

181 Wn.2d 329, 339, 334 P.3d 14 (2014). We also may consider dictionary definitions of

undefined statutory terms. Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863, 881, 357 P.3d 45 (2015).

If a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’s plain meaning as an expression of

legislative intent without considering other sources of such intent. Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at 762.

If the plain language of the statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the

statute is ambiguous. Id. We resolve ambiguity by considering other indications of legislative

intent, including principles of statutory construction, legislative history, and relevant case law.

Id.

We will interpret statutory language in a way that avoids an absurd or unlikely result.

Five Corners Family Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 311, 268 P.3d 892 (2011). In limited

situations, we will interpret language to avoid an absurd result “even if [we] must disregard