The broad waiver of tenant rights in this particular settlement agreement can be readily
seen in the short and direct statement, “By signing this Agreement, the parties forego the usual
unlawful detainer procedures.” CP at 54 (emphasis added). Such a provision simply cannot be
reconciled with RCW 59.18.230(1)(b).
Moreover, the settlement agreement permitted an immediate writ of restitution without
affording the Allens any of the procedures and protections that permeate RLTA. There is no
question these features constituted a waiver of “any other rights afforded under this chapter
[(RLTA)] . . . .” RCW 59.18.230(1)(b) (emphasis added). Thus, we hold this settlement agreement
violated RCW 59.18.230(1)(b).
Princeton argues against this conclusion by focusing on the “exception” language in RCW
59.18.230(1)(b) that exempts agreements under RCW 59.18.360. See RCW 59.18.230(1)(b)
11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 58183-3-II
(“Any agreement . . . entered into pursuant to an unlawful detainer action . . . that . . . waives any
rights . . . afforded under this chapter except as provided in RCW 59.18.360 . . . is void and
unenforceable.”) (emphasis added). RCW 59.18.360, in turn, provides that a “landlord and tenant
may agree, in writing, to exempt themselves from the provisions of . . . [RCW] 59.18.190.” RCW
59.18.190, in turn, provides that landlords may give immediate notice to tenants to cure alleged
nonconformance of general tenant duties under RCW 59.18.130. Reading these provisions
together, Princeton argues, “To the extent that the Allens may arguably have had a right to some
kind of notice prior to the granting of the writ of restitution in this case, they explicitly waived that