Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf

applying [the small claims statute] to residential unlawful detainer
actions would, in certain situations, create a conflict between them and
the specific statute for fees in residential unlawful detainer actions
. . . . For example, consider the case where a landlord brought an
unlawful detainer action against a tenant who had paid no rent but, after
suit was commenced, made an offer of settlement to pay less rent than
the amount claimed due by the landlord. If the landlord rejected the
offer and ultimately recovered less than the amount offered, the tenant
would be deemed the prevailing party under RCW 4.84.270 since,
according to that provision, the defendant prevails if the plaintiff
recovers less than the amount offered in settlement or recovers nothing.
Thus, the tenant, even though guilty of unlawful detainer for
nonpayment of rent, would be entitled to a mandatory fee award under
RCW 4.84.250 and .270. This would conflict with the application of
RCW 59.18.290, which would authorize a discretionary fee award only
to the landlord, who prevailed by recovering possession and unpaid rent
as damages. RCW 4.84.250 and .270 would be superseded.

Id. at 856.

While the Kirby case involved the unlawful detainer provisions of the RLTA,

its reasoning recognizes tension in the attorney fee provisions that may apply in

various RLTA actions, including a claim to recover a damage deposit as in this case.

The Lewises sought attorney fees under the RLTA after receiving the maximum

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9

recovery possible in light of the partial summary judgment order: return of their full