Allens argued that the settlement agreement violated RLTA. They contended their statutory right
under RLTA to reinstate the tenancy could not be waived by the settlement agreement because of
a recent addition to RLTA that prohibits agreements that waive tenant rights. More specifically,
the Allens argued,
Plaintiff may argue that there has been a waiver of RCW 59.18.410 based on the
CR2A, but the CR2A is completely silent as [to] any such waiver. Furthermore,
RCW 59.18.230 prohibits waiver of the rights provided by [RCW] 59.18.410.
CP at 112 (emphasis omitted). The next paragraph of their motion block quoted portions of
RCW 59.18.230.
The superior court denied both motions. The superior court simply stated there was not an
adequate basis to shorten time or stay enforcement. A few days later, the sheriff executed the writ.
The Allens appeal.
ANALYSIS
The Allens make numerous arguments in their appeal, but their primary argument is the
CR 2A settlement agreement was void and unenforceable because it waived their rights in violation
of RLTA.
Princeton argues that the settlement agreement does not violate RLTA and also contends
the matter is moot because the Allens are no longer in possession of the apartment.
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 58183-3-II
I. MOOTNESS
As a threshold matter, Princeton argues that this appeal is moot because the Allens are no
longer in possession of the premises and the court can no longer provide relief. The Allens respond
that the appeal is not moot because they are contesting the right of possession. We agree with the
Allens.
An unlawful detainer case is not moot simply because the tenant does not have possession