Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Citation
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Parent Document
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2016-12-22
Other Sections in This Document (51)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
- Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash. 2d 308 (2016)
Full Text
1,541 chars¶19 Tenants also direct us to New Jersey cases interpreting a similar New Jersey state just cause eviction law. Pet. for Review at 11; Suppl. Br. of Pet’rs at 5-6. These cases are not particularly helpful. Tenants primarily rely on Durruthy v. Brunert, in which the court held that the owner of a building with two residential and two commercial units could invoke a provision of New Jersey’s Anti-Eviction Act permitting the owner of a building “ ‘of three residential units or less’ ” to evict a tenant upon a showing that the owner “ ‘seeks to personally occupy a unit.’ ” 228 N.J. Super. 199, 200, 549 A.2d 456 (1988) (quoting N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A: 18-61.1(l)(3)). Durruthy interprets the meaning of “building of three residential units or less,” which has nothing to do with the issue in the present case. See id. at 201. The only relevant portion of the case states that “the record before [the court] does not justify” a finding that the owner intends to personally occupy the unit, as the testimony was incomplete and “neither the witnesses nor counsel focused on the factual question whether [the owners] had adequately proved their asserted bona fide intention to occupy” the unit. Id. at 203. Although this language paral*319lels the requirement under SMC 22.206.160(C)(1) that landlords must “prove in court that just cause exists,” it does not address the main inquiry in this case: whether the landlord’s certification under SMC 22.206.160(C)(4) is dis-positive on the question of just cause. Durruthy is therefore not helpful.