Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co., Inc., 197 Wash. 2d 535 (2021)

Citation: Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co., Inc., 197 Wash. 2d 535 (2021)
Parent Document: Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co., Inc., 197 Wash. 2d 535 (2021)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2021-04-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10797891/silver-v-rudeen-mgmt-co-inc/ ↗

Full Text

955 chars

15
                  This understanding of the nature of the security deposit is consistent with recent revisions
       to the URLTA, which clarify that the security deposit remains the property of the tenant and that
       the landlord’s interest in the deposit is limited to a security interest. REVISED URLTA (2015) §
       1202(a)(1) & cmt., 7B U.L.A. at 259-60 (2018).
               16
                  As Silver and amicus curiae point out, the Court of Appeals erroneously stated that Silver
       did not assert that he did not cause excessive damage to the apartment. Silver, 10 Wn. App. 2d at
       680. In fact, the complaint alleged that “Mr. Silver was not responsible for the allegedly excessive
       wear and tear to the premises.” CP at 5.
                                                        16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
       Silver v. Rudeen Mgmt. Co.
       No. 98024-1

Other Sections in This Document (607)

Full Text