MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- Citation
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- Parent Document
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2001-02-01
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4930917/mh2-co-v-hwang/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (19)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
- MH2 Co. v. Hwang, 104 Wash. App. 680 (2001)
Full Text
899 charsGiven the above, we conclude the trial court properly decided that rents were due under the lease for the older rental defaults and that no statutory unlawful detainer occurred for the newer rental defaults. The latter conclusion was correct because the Hwangs properly tendered two months rent in response to the notice and subsequently paid the rents into the court’s registry, plus more than enough to cover the taxes. It follows that, under Sundholm, the unlawful detainer should have been dismissed and the tendered sums held in the court’s registry paid to MH2. And, under Munden, because possession was no longer an issue, the court properly ordered judgment as well for the older rents due under the lease together with attorney fees and costs as prevailing party. No rent doubling provision is in the lease. Thus, doubling was not an available remedy, either under the statute or the lease.