Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,748 chars

authority to terminate a tenancy under the RLTA because he did not have authority

to grant a lease).

The State’s arguments that the respondents acted in the stead of the landlords

are largely unsupported in this record. The State argues that the respondents

“commandeered” the landlord’s authority to determine who to evict by making

participation mandatory and ordering or requesting landlords to evict tenants.

44
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

Appellant State of Wash.’s Br. at 69. Alternatively, they argue that the respondents

acted as “agents” of landlords in the same way. Id. at 71; see RCW 59.18.030(16).

These allegations raise concerning questions, but we see no facts in this record

that support an agency relationship here. “Agency” refers to a relationship where a

principal agrees to another (an agent) acting “on the principal’s behalf, subject to the

principal’s control,” and the agent assents to do so. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 76

(11th ed. 2019). “We have repeatedly held that a prerequisite of an agency is control

of the agent by the principal.” Moss v. Vadman, 77 Wn.2d 396, 402, 463 P.2d 159

(1969). No facts in the record suggest any landlords control the respondents here

and there is nothing in the record to indicate that there exists an agent-principal

relationship here.

While the State claims that the respondents are forcing extrajudicial evictions,

what exists on this record does not show that respondents have violated the RLTA.

It is possible that landlords in the City have violated the RLTA, but the State has not

offered facts indicating the respondents are landlords or that the RLTA applies to