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

We hold that under 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l), Housing Kitsap’s lawful termination of

Kimbra’s lease prevented the lease from automatically renewing. Therefore, we hold that

Housing Kitsap could file an unlawful detainer action without notice or an opportunity to cure

under RCW 59.12.030(1).

C. CHALLENGES TO RCW 59.12.030(1) UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Kimbra argues that even if RCW 59.12.030(1) applies, Housing Kitsap’s filing of an

unlawful detainer action without notice violated notice provisions of federal law, violated her

due process and equal protection rights, and was premature. We reject these arguments.

1. Required Notice under Federal Law

Kimbra relies on federal regulations addressing eviction in arguing that Housing Kitsap

violated federal law. Under 24 C.F.R. § 966.6(d), PHAs cannot include in their leases any

provisions allowing the PHA to “institute suit without any notice . . . thus preventing the tenant

from defending against the lawsuit.” Under 24 C.F.R. § 966.6(e), PHAs cannot include in their

14
             

No. 47696-7-II

leases any provisions allowing the PHA to “evict the tenant . . . whenever the landlord

determines that a breach or default has occurred without notice to the tenant or any determination

by a court of the rights and liabilities of the parties.” Kimbra argues that these regulations

require a PHA to give notice before filing an unlawful detainer action even though RCW

59.12.030(1) does not require such notice.

However, 24 C.F.R. § 966.6 applies only to “leases between a PHA and a tenant,” and

subsections (d) and (e) simply prohibit a PHA from including certain provisions in a public