Croghan had a month-to-month lease at Columbus Park. In September 2018, Croghan testified that she filed at least two complaints with the Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
On October 5, 2018, Columbus Park's manager (Lerud) served Croghan with a notice to terminate tenancy, with tenancy ending October 31, 2018. In December 2018, Columbus Park filed an unlawful detainer action.
Croghan answered the complaint, alleging the unlawful detainer action was retaliatory. Columbus Park denied retaliation via Lerud's declaration.
At a show cause hearing, the commissioner initially ruled in favor of Columbus Park, but then changed her mind. The parties proceeded to trial, where Lerud and Croghan were the only witnesses to testify.
The judge ruled for Columbus Park. While there was evidence that Croghan made the complaints to the state entities, the court ruled that Columbus Park was not aware of those complaints, a requirement to trigger retaliation. The court concluded Croghan was in unlawful detainer of the premises and terminated her tenancy. Croghan appealed.
_______________________
The Division I Court of Appeals affirmed.
First, there was substantial evidence to support no retaliation. Lerud was notified of the complaints only after serving the notice to terminate tenancy. While Croghan claims there were events prior to serving the termination notice, such events were speculative and hearsay, and therefore not credible. The trial court was not bound to specifically cite RCW 59.18.250 in its rulings, and Columbus Park's attorney clearly argued the section at trial anyway.
Second, the appellate court found no due process violation. Croghan was allowed sufficient opportunities to present evidence, and the trial court only rejected one of her exhibits because it was already admitted into evidence by the parties' agreement. The exhibit otherwise would have been rejected on hearsay grounds.
Finally, Division One rejected allegations that Columbus Park engaged in forgery and fraud.
The appellate court denied Columbus Park's request for attorney fees and Croghan's requests for relief.
_______________________
Retaliation was one of the more common defenses I faced while representing landlords in private practice. From what I remember, it only worked once against me, and only because I found out after the fact that there was was clear written documentation to support the claim.
RCW 59.18.250 has a main 90-day rule - a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's act was retaliatory if made within 90 days of a good faith and lawful tenant act. Other scenarios presented in the section did not apply. For example, there was no evidence that the tenant was in arrears on rent.
Columbus Park overcame the main 90-day rule by presenting evidence that they had no knowledge of the tenant's complaints prior to serving the termination notice. This makes perfect sense, since a landlord cannot retaliate if it had no knowledge of any event to retaliate on.
