Opinion ID: 1374499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the award of treble damages for commissive waste

Text: We next review the trial court's holding that two aspects of Arden's conduct constituted commissive waste for which damages could be trebled. The trial court found that Arden voluntarily and intentionally, committed substantial injury to the premises in removing its equipment by deliberately knocking holes in walls, removing headers, damaging floors, damaging ceilings, etc., and by the manner in which it shut down refrigeration equipment. The court concluded that these actions constituted commissive waste and trebled the damages for them pursuant to RCW 64.12.020. Arden argues that the trial court erred in holding that these two aspects of Arden's conduct were commissive waste and, therefore, in awarding treble damages for them. [7] Commissive waste is the commission of some deliberate or voluntary destructive act, such as pulling down a house, or removing things fixed to and constituting a material part of the freehold. (Italics omitted.) Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Brommers, 89 Wn.2d 190, 202, 570 P.2d 1035 (1977) (quoting Graffell v. Honeysuckle, 30 Wn.2d 390, 398, 191 P.2d 858 (1948)). Commissive waste is distinguished from permissive waste, which implies negligence or omission to do that which will prevent injury, as, for instance, to suffer a house to go to decay for want of repair or to deteriorate from neglect. Graffell, at 398. RCW 64.12.020 provides that if a tenant of real property commit waste thereon, any person injured thereby may maintain an action at law for damages and if the plaintiff prevails, there shall be judgment for treble damages ... Under RCW 64.12.020, treble damages must be awarded if the tenant commits waste and the plaintiff prevails. Brommers, at 202; Graffell, at 401-02. First, Arden contends that it did not commit commissive waste in shutting down the refrigeration equipment. The evidence shows that the shutdown caused ice to melt, damaging the floor, and caused cork lining the walls to pull away. Arden argues, however, that there is no evidence that the shutting down of the system was a deliberate or voluntary destructive act. The trial court found that Arden knew it would cause substantial injury to the premises in shutting down the refrigeration equipment in the manner in which it did. There is substantial evidence to support this finding, and we will not disturb it. Brommers, at 199. Furthermore, this finding supports the trial court's conclusion that such conduct constituted commissive waste, and thus, we affirm the trial court's award of treble damages for it. Second, Arden argues it did not commit commissive waste in removing its equipment. It asserts that Fisher requested that it remove the equipment, and, therefore, any resulting damage could not have been commissive waste. However, the fact that a tenant has removed equipment in performing a duty to the landlord does not mean that the manner in which it removed it is not a deliberate or voluntary destructive act. The trial court seems to have found that the removal was a deliberate, destructive act because of the way Arden did it. There is substantial evidence in the record that the manner in which Arden removed equipment resulted in destruction to the premises. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment of treble damages for commissive waste resulting from Arden's removal of equipment from the premises.