Court Opinion

ID: 9547411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:47:10.100196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:43.755575
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting) — The public policy of this State of ensuring safe and sanitary rental housing, the broad enabling language of our Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, and the interpretation given to federal law by *554numerous sister jurisdictions dealing with the same or similar matters, lead me to the unalterable conclusion that Washington residential landlord-tenant concerns are subject to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973
At common law, under the principle of caveat emptor, a landlord had no duty to provide habitable rental property, nor a duty to repair rental property. Lincoln v. Farnkoff, 26 Wn. App. 717, 719, 613 P.2d 1212 (1980). This legal position gave way to modern realities when this court afforded residential tenants the protection of an implied covenant of habitability. Foisy v. Wyman, 83 Wn.2d 22, 25-28, 515 P.2d 160 (1973). Following this lead, the Legislature enacted the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (Act). This Act modified the common law so as to require decent, safe and sanitary housing. It further added a covenant to repair to most residential rental agreements. Lincoln, at 719-20; O'Brien v. Detty, 19 Wn. App. 620, 621, 576 P.2d 1334, review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1020 (1978). The Act provides that any exemption from the statutory duties and obligations of tenant and landlord cannot "violate the public policy of this state in favor of the ensuring safe, and sanitary housing" and that any such exemption must have the approval of either the local prosecutor's office, the "consumer protection division of the attorney general's office", or the attorney for the tenant. RCW 59.18.360.
Although the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 imposes upon the landlord the duty to keep the premises fit for human habitation, its remedial provisions are significantly qualified. Most notable is the section which requires the tenant to be current in the payment of rent before exercising any of the remedies accorded him under the provisions of the Act. See RCW 59.18.080. Requiring a low-income tenant to be current in rent undoubtedly deprives many such tenants of the remedial provisions of the Act. See Clocksin, Washington's Residential Landlord-Tenant *555Act of 1973, 27 Wash. State Bar News No. 7, at 4, 27-28 (July 1973); Comment, Washington Tenant Remedies and the Consumer Protection Act, 10 Gonz. L. Rev. 559, 561-62 (1975). The protection afforded against retaliatory eviction for assertion of tenants' rights under the Act is circumscribed by a presumption that a landlord's termination is neither a reprisal nor retaliatory where the landlord serves notice to vacate for a tenant's breach of any obligation, including being in arrears in rent. The tenant's failure to overcome this presumption entitles the landlord to recover his costs, including attorney fees. See RCW 59.18.240, .250. Additionally, the right to terminate for constructive eviction is an illusory remedy where there is a serious housing shortage for low income tenants. If the tenant remains on the premises, he must await the repair process. In the event of judicial action, a court may grant damages or abatement of rent, but neither of these will restore the premises to a habitable state. See RCW 59.18.070, .090, .110. Although the Act does provide for attorney fees, an award is limited to instances of retaliatory action (RCW 59.18.250), recovery of deposits (RCW 59.18.280), wrongful exclusion from leasehold (RCW 59.18.290), and intentional termination of utilities (RCW 59.18.300). The Act does not provide attorney fees for breach of the duty to maintain habitable premises, nor are damages multiplied, except the tenant may recover up to two times the amount of a wrongfully held deposit. See RCW 59.18.280. As noted in Stoebuck, The Law Between Landlord and Tenant in Washington: Part I, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 291, 296 (1974), suits by tenants are generally economically not feasible when they rely on the remedial provisions of the Act:
It seems to be a fact of life that there seldom is enough at stake between a residential landlord and tenant to make litigation worth the cost, at any rate, at the appellate level. In view of the paucity of residential cases, one might wonder how heavy an impact the 1973 Residential Landlord-Tenant Act will have on life in the state.
*556Despite these shortcomings, the majority finds that the comprehensive nature of the Act evidences an intent that the remedial provisions provided therein are all inclusive. The remedies set forth in the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973, however, are not exclusive. In addition to the specific remedies in the Act, specifically reserved is the right to resort to remedies otherwise provided by law. RCW 59.18.070, .090, .160, .170.
Consumer Protection Act
The Consumer Protection Act is a particularly appropriate vehicle for enforcing the provisions of the residential landlord-tenant act where their violation affects the public interest of this state in ensuring safe and sanitary housing. The remedies which are available under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to, and may be considered together with, any other available remedies. MacCormack v. Robins Constr., 11 Wn. App. 80, 82, 521 P.2d 761 (1974). See also State v. Ralph Williams' Northwest Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 265, 510 P.2d 233, 59 A.L.R.3d 1209 (1973). The Act's treble damages and attorney fees provisions are encouragement for low income tenants to seek redress under the Act. The injunctive provisions may be used to protect other tenants similarly situated.
The Consumer Protection Act declares unlawful " [ujnfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . .". RCW 19.86.020. These broad prohibitions are the equivalent of enabling acts which allow the Attorney General or private individuals to translate state public policy in the area of consumer protection into law. The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to "complement the body of federal law governing restraints of trade, unfair competition and unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent acts or practices in order to protect the public and foster fair and honest competition." RCW 19.86.920. At the same time, however, the Legislature made clear it does not wish to prohibit "acts or *557practices which are reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business or which are not injurious to the public interest." RCW 19.86.920. In attempting to balance these two concerns, the Consumer Protection Act essentially copies the approach taken by the federal government in the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58 (1970), and further directs the courts to be guided by the interpretation given by the federal courts to the various federal statutes dealing with the same or similar matters. RCW 19.86.920.
This mandate received attention in State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 275, 501 P.2d 290 (1972), appeal dismissed, 411 U.S. 945, 36 L. Ed. 2d 406, 93 S. Ct. 1927 (1973):
In the final analysis, the interpretation of RCW 19.86.020 is left to the state courts. This enables us to arrive at the statute's meaning by the same "gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion" used by the federal courts. . . . But in each case the question of what constitutes an "unfair method of competition" or an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" under RCW 19.86.020 is for us, rather than the federal courts, to determine.
The majority completely ignores this judicial inclusion and exclusion process by finding that a legislative failure to specifically include landlord-tenant concerns within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act requires judicial exclusion. The majority apparently assumes that if the Legislature had intended applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to residential landlord-tenant concerns, it would have so provided in the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973.
This was not the intention of the Legislature. In addition to legislatively designated activities, there is an endless multitude of business activities which may be within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. See, e.g., Eastlake Constr. Co. v. Hess, 102 Wn.2d 30, 686 P.2d 465 (1984), building contractors; McRae v. Bolstad, 101 Wn.2d 161, 676 *558P.2d 496 (1984), real estate sales; Ulberg v. Seattle Bonded, Inc., 28 Wn. App. 762, 626 P.2d 522 (1981), collection agencies; Tallmadge v. Aurora Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 25 Wn. App. 90, 605 P.2d 1275 (1979), automobile sales; Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P.2d 163 (1984), law practice; Salois v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 90 Wn.2d 355, 581 P.2d 1349 (1978), insurance business.
In Salois, we noted that some statutes contain a specific mandate that commission of a prohibited act shall be a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Although in that case there was no such connecting link between the insurance code and the Consumer Protection Act, we declared insurance a matter of public interest and the insurer's breach of the insurance code constituted an unfair trade practice. Salois, at 359; see also Rounds v. Union Bankers Ins. Co., 22 Wn. App. 613, 590 P.2d 1286 (1979).
This breadth of scope and the generality of the language of prohibition in the Consumer Protection Act result from the virtual impossibility of providing specific standards and definitions which would govern all unfair or deceptive practices. In drafting the Federal Trade Commission Act, Congress noted this situation:
It is impossible to frame definitions which embrace all unfair practices. There is no limit to human inventiveness in this field. Even if all known unfair practices were specifically defined and prohibited, it would be at once necessary to begin over again. If Congress were to adopt the method of definition, it would undertake an endless task. It is also practically impossible to define unfair practices so that the definition will fit business of every sort in every part of this country. Whether competition is unfair or not generally depends upon the surrounding circumstances of the particular case. What is harmful under certain circumstances may be beneficial under different circumstances.
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1142, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1914); see also The Washington Consumer Advisory Council, *559Consumer Protection in the State of Washington 42-43 (1960).
Those jurisdictions which have consumer protection acts similarly patterned after federal statutes and which have had occasion to address landlord-tenant concerns, have unanimously held that landlord-tenant activities are within the ambit of their respective consumer protection acts.
The leading decision addressing this issue is Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 459 Pa. 450, 329 A.2d 812 (1974). In that case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the leasing of residential housing was intended to fall within the purview of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law. The court held that the remedial purposes behind the law mandated a liberal construction of the law's terms so that the prevention of unfair or deceptive trade practices might be accomplished. As support for its finding, the court cited similar language in section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and court decisions under the federal statute which had applied section 5 to the leasing of property.
We have seen, however, that Congress chose not to delineate precisely the type of unfair and deceptive practices outlawed; rather, it gave the Commission a deliberately flexible standard. FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., [405 U.S. 233, 31 L. Ed. 2d 170, 92 S. Ct. 898 (1972)] 405 U.S. at 239-240, 92 S.Ct. at 903. It is altogether inconsistent with the congressional intent that section 5 be a broad, all-inclusive trade regulation statute, to imply an exception for leases. Moreover, the argument that no specific mention is made of leasing really cuts the other way, in view of Congress' explicitness when it desired to make an exception from the jurisdiction of section 5. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(6) (1963).
Also, there are numerous cases under section 5 in which the Commission sought to enjoin unfair and deceptive methods in connection with the leasing of property. . . . Aside from judicial decisions, administrative proceedings initiated by the Commission have resulted in section 5 jurisdiction over leases. . . .
*560No support in the federal precursors of the Consumer Protection Law can be found for an exclusion for leasing from the Law's broad prohibition of unfair and deceptive practices in market transactions. On the other hand, the legislative history of, decisions interpreting, and FTC proceedings under section 5 of the FTC Act strongly counsel that the leasing of housing is covered by the Consumer Protection Law.
(Footnotes and citations omitted.) Commonwealth, at 464-66.
The court also considered the statutory language which defined "trade or commerce" and reviewed the defendants' contention that the lease of residential housing did not fall within the phrase's definition. An extensive review of modern case law in other jurisdictions, traditional common law conceptions of the nature of a lease, the pragmatic and functional approach of the Legislature when attempting to solve societal problems, and the consequences of a contrary finding all contributed to the court's holding that the term "trade or commerce" includes the business of leasing housing services.
We cannot presume that the Legislature when attempting to control unfair and deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce intended to be strictly bound by common-law formalisms. Rather the more natural inference is that the Legislature intended the Consumer Protection Law to be given a pragmatic reading — a reading consistent with modern day economic reality. That pragmatic reading dictates that purchasers of rental housing be treated as consumers and, therefore, within the class of persons sought to be protected by the Consumer Protection Law.
Commonwealth, at 469-70. The court further held that to "refuse to apply the Consumer Protection Law to the leasing of residential housing would needlessly insulate a great percentage of market transactions from the Law's salutary antifraud provisions. Only by exalting form over substance could such a course be pursued." Commonwealth, at 478.
Finally, the court analyzed the argument that residential leasing should be excluded from the Consumer Protection *561Law because it was not a designated activity within the ambit of the legislation. The court held that Pennsylvania has a "deceptive trade practices" type statute which contains broad language prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices. The statute then proceeds to set out specific prohibited acts as well. The court recognized the ever-changing nature of fraudulent business practices and held that a reading of the statutes which limited prohibited conduct to only those specifically enumerated examples of unfair trade practices would thwart the legislative intendment. Commonwealth, at 479-80.
In McGrath v. Mishara, 386 Mass. 74, 434 N.E.2d 1215 (1982), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the mere fact that statutes governing improper retention of rental security deposits and the chapter governing unfair or deceptive trade practices contain overlapping prohibitions and remedies did not establish legislative intent to preclude their concurrent application. The protection of the chapter governing the regulation of business for consumers' protection was held to extend to the landlord-tenant relationship.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut, under similar analysis, held that landlord violations of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act amounted to unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484, 464 A.2d 847, 851-52 (1983).
The Illinois appellate court in People ex rel. Fahner v. Hedrich, 108 Ill. App. 3d 83, 438 N.E.2d 924 (1982) held that landlord violations of the Mobile Home Landlord and Tenant Act were subject to Attorney General actions for unfair or deceptive practices under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The court found support for its view in both federal law and the decisions of sister jurisdictions. Accord, People ex rel. Fahner v. Testa, 112 Ill. App. 3d 834, 445 N.E.2d 1249 (1983).
Coverage of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act was extended to the residential landlord-tenant relationship in Carter v. Mueller, 120 Ill. *562App. 3d 314, 457 N.E.2d 1335 (1983); see also Love v. Pressley, 34 N.C. App. 503, 239 S.E.2d 574 (1978); Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 366 Mass. 234, 316 N.E.2d 748 (1974).
The only tenable argument for the majority's position is the Legislature's rejection of an amendment to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 which, as proposed, would have provided:
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed, for the purposes of application of the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, to constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice or an unfair method of competition in the conduct of trade or commerce.
Senate Journal, 43d Legislature (1973), at 1006. Rejection of this amendment, however, does not support the majority's finding that the Legislature evinced an intent that landlord-tenant concerns not be covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Generally the rejection of an amendment indicates that the Legislature does not intend the legislation to include the provisions embodied in the rejected amendment. 2A C. Sands, Statutory Construction § 48.18, at 341 (4th ed. 1973). The language of the proposed amendment would have provided that any violation of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 would constitute a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The Legislature simply rejected a per se basis for application of the Consumer Protection Act to residential landlord-tenant concerns which do not affect the public interest. See, e.g., Haner v. Quincy Farm Chems., Inc., 97 Wn.2d 753, 762, 649 P.2d 828 (1982); Moolick v. Lawson, 33 Wn. App. 665, 655 P.2d 1185 (1982). The Legislature did not evince an intent to prohibit the Attorney General (or private litigants) from proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act for egregious violations of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 affecting the public interest of ensuring safe and sanitary housing. See Anhold v. Daniels, 94 Wn.2d 40, *56346, 614 P.2d 184 (1980); Salois v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 90 Wn.2d 355, 581 P.2d 1349 (1978).
The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 specifically reserves the right to resort to remedies otherwise provided by law. The Consumer Protection Act provides such an appropriate remedy for both the private litigant and Attorney General. Although the Attorney General is not granted express authority to proceed under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973, his authority under the Consumer Protection Act is broadly defined.
The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state against any person to restrain and prevent the doing of any act herein prohibited or declared to be unlawful; and the prevailing party may, in the discretion of the court, recover the costs of said action including a reasonable attorney's fee.
The court may make such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any act herein prohibited or declared to be unlawful.
RCW 19.86.080.
In State v. Tacoma-Pierce Cy. Multiple Listing Serv., 95 Wn.2d 280, 622 P.2d 1190 (1980), we noted that the Attorney General lacked standing to enforce real estate brokers' and salesmen's statutes against boards of realtors but that such fact was of no significance in an action by the Attorney General against such boards for violations of the Consumer Protection Act.
Similarly, the Supreme Court of California in People v. McKale, 25 Cal. 3d 626, 602 P.2d 731, 159 Cal. Rptr. 811 (1979) held that the lack of express authorization of a district attorney to prosecute violations of the Mobilehome Parks Act did not preclude district attorney action pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act for activity which constituted'unfair or deceptive practices.
*564Conclusion
I would hold that the Attorney General had authority to bring this action for violations of the Consumer Protection Act. Defendant Schwab's leasing of submarginal housing on an "as is" basis and exempting himself from providing repairs or landlord services is unlawful and contrary to public policy of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing. This holding is in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority in both federal law and the decisions of sister jurisdictions and comports with both the purpose and intent of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 and the Consumer Protection Act.
Williams, C.J., concurs with Dore, J.
Reconsideration denied March 5, 1985.