HELD: A trial is required to determine any "other relief" a landlord can seek under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act if a tenant presents issues of material fact that dispute the landlord's claim.
The Websters owned real property and rented a portion of it to Litz. They served Litz with a 20-day notice to terminate tenancy. Litz did not vacate, so the Websters filed a UD action to gain possession of the unit. The Websters sought additional damages, alleging Litz used or prepared methamphetamine on the property.
At the show cause hearing, the Websters only presented circumstantial evidence, such as aromas coming from Litz's unit and spotting hypodermic needles in the recycle bin, but presented no testimony where anyone actually saw Litz using or preparing methamphetamine. The Websters' expert (Hamilton), a drug lab contamination supervisor, testified there was methamphetamine in the unit, but it could have been there for years.
Litz did not challenge the Websters' right to obtain a writ of restitution, but denied that he or any guest used methamphetamine. He acknowledged there was chalk on the windowsill to control an ant problem.
The court granted the writ and further ruled that the Websters met their preponderance burden on the methamphetamine issue.
Litz appealed, only challenging the court prematurely awarded damages on the meth issue without holding a trial.
Division One reversed, holding that the trial court should have conducted a trial on the methamphetamine damages issue.
The appellate court noted that there are two parts to any show cause hearing:
- Is the landlord entitled to a writ of restitution and possession of the unit?
- Is the landlord entitled to other relief in this action? This includes termination of the lease and any monetary damages.
Division One did not address the first question because Litz did not challenge the writ of restitution.
However, on the second question, Litz denied using methamphetamine, and he also testified no one else accessing the unit used methamphetamine while he was a tenant there. Therefore, there was a substantial issue of material fact that required a trial.
The appellate court denied the Websters' request for attorney fees.
The key here is, although the trial court concluded that it was "more likely than not" that Litz used methamphetamine on the property to award the writ of restitution, it could not then use that same conclusion to award "other relief" damages to the Websters without conducting a trial, because Litz specifically denied using methamphetamine.
________________________
This actually makes me look back on my career to see how judges ruled on eviction matters I filed. Several times, the judges could press for more details at the show cause hearing to determine damages right then and there, but other times, the judge simply set the entire matter for an evidentiary hearing, even leaving in limbo whether the landlord could even get the writ of restitution.
I recall maybe 1-2 times having litigation solely on the issue of damages, as the tenant had vacated the unit or otherwise planned to vacate. It usually ended with filing a stipulated agreement, the norm in this situation, as damages are usually not high enough for a landlord to seek extensive litigation (in other words, it is not worth getting the large attorney bill).
Since this case is a published opinion, it may prove helpful for Washington attorneys representing tenants.
