HELD: A holdover tenant is not a "covered person" under the CDC's guidelines and therefore, that holdover tenant may be evicted during COVID-19.
Nyman rented property to Hanley under a one-year lease expiring in July 2020. The parties agreed the lease did not revert to a month-to-month tenancy.
In March 2020, Washington put an eviction moratorium in place due to COVID-19.
In June 2020, the state allowed a landlord to evict a tenant if the landlord provided 60 days' notice and the landlord intended to move into the unit. Nyman went that route, serving notice that Hanley leave by September 1, 2020. Hanley did not vacate.
On September 4, 2020, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium. To qualify for the hardship, a tenant had to be a "covered person", which covered every tenant EXCEPT if they met one of the following:
- Engaging in criminal activity on the premises;
- Threatening the health or safety of other residents;
- Damaging or posing an immediate and significant risk of damage to property;
- Violating any applicable building code, health ordinance, or similar regulation relating to health and safety; OR
- Violating any other contractual obligation other than the timely payment of rent or similar housing-related payment (including nonpayment or late payment of fees, penalties, or interest)
Hanley argued he was a covered person and thus could claim a hardship under the CDC's guidelines to prevent getting evicted.
The trial court judge disagreed and, in October 2020, granted Nyman's request for a writ of restitution. The WA Supreme Court granted Hanley's emergency stay of the writ and took the case on direct, accelerated review.
_________________________
The WA Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling and lifted the stay of the writ of restitution, ruling that Hanley was not a covered person. The court focused on just the last of the five exemptions (contractual obligation) because the other four did not apply to this case.
Hanley argued that violating a contractual obligation should have been construed narrowly and not include more passive violations like a lease expiring. However, the plain language of "violating any other contractual obligation..." is broad, and since refusing to vacate the premises after expiration of the lease term is violating a contractual obligation, Hanley was not a covered person under the CDC order.
In a footnote, the court stressed that this was not a situation where a landlord unilaterally attempted to break an ongoing month-to-month tenancy. In the month-to-month hypothetical, a landlord could not then use a "trespass" or similar state-law offense as a reason to remove the tenant.
This case also took place prior to Washington commencing its pilot program for requiring mediation and giving tenants the right to an attorney.
Although this case arose due to COVID-19, it likely could be applied to future pandemics of similar size and scope, unless the CDC modifies those guidelines to more clearly include or exclude certain situations.
