Kiemle & Hagood Company v. Mariam P. Daniels a/k/a Phoebe Daniels (2023)

Citation: Kiemle & Hagood Company v. Mariam P. Daniels a/k/a Phoebe Daniels (2023)
Parent Document: Kiemle & Hagood Company v. Mariam P. Daniels a/k/a Phoebe Daniels (2023)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2023-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9440172/kiemle-hagood-company-v-mariam-... ↗

Full Text

638 chars

2
               The notice also cited RCW 59.18.650(2)(b), which authorizes a landlord to
       terminate a tenancy based on a “substantial breach” of a material lease term. However,
       subsection (2)(b) requires a tenant be given 10 days to cure their noncompliance. Because
       the December 27 notice did not provide such a cure period, it cannot fairly be read as
       invoking subsection (2)(b). See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 372, 173 P.3d
       228 (2007) (noting the time and manner requirements of notice demand strict
       compliance). Thus, subsection (2)(c) was K&H’s only viable cause for eviction.

Other Sections in This Document (519)

Full Text