Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)

Citation: Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)
Parent Document: Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2015-05-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4956711/pham-v-corbett/ ↗

Full Text

825 chars

*835¶35 Pham argues that the statute must contain an additional implicit notice requirement and cure period because RCW 59.18.085 notes indicate that a landlord is to receive “due notice.” Laws of 2005, ch. 364, § 1. The notes read, “The purpose of this act is to establish a process by which displaced tenants would receive funds for relocation from landlords who fail to provide safe and sanitary housing after due notice of building code or health code violations.” Id. Again, the legislature already provided for “due notice” by requiring a “governmental agency responsible for the enforcement of a building, housing, or other appropriate code” to “notif [y] the landlord that a dwelling” is or will be “condemned” or “unlawful to occupy” before imposing a duty to provide relocation assistance. RCW 59.18.085(1), (3)(a).

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text