Court Opinion

ID: 9897994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:39.79352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:08.123304
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
                                                                                                       Filed
                                                                                                 Washington State
                                                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                                                                                  Division Two

                                                                                                    May 2, 2023

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                                DIVISION II
        MATTHEW HOWARD AND CYNTHIA                                          No. 56797-1-II
        FORLAND, Owner,

                                        Respondents,

                  v.

        JAMES PINKERTON, and any other persons                          PUBLISHED OPINION
        occupying:
        2115 N. Tower Ave, Centralia, WA 98531,

                                        Appellant.

                 LEE, J. — In this unlawful detainer action, James Pinkerton appeals the superior court’s

       order granting Matthew Howard and Cynthia Forland’s motion for a writ of restitution. Pinkerton

       argues that the superior court erred by ordering the writ of restitution, in effect denying his motion

       to dismiss, based on an incorrect interpretation of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). Pinkerton requests

       attorney fees and costs on appeal. Howard and Forland also request attorney fees on appeal.

                 We hold that the superior court erred by granting the writ of restitution based on an

       incorrect interpretation of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the

       writ of restitution and remand for the superior court to dismiss the case. We also award attorney

       fees and costs on appeal to Pinkerton and deny Howard and Forland’s request for attorney fees on

       appeal.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

                                                     FACTS

              Howard and Forland own a property containing a single-family home and an outbuilding

       that can be described as a workshop or shed. In 2017, Howard and Forland leased the shed to

       Pinkerton for his residential use. Pinkerton paid rent in exchange for his exclusive use of the shed.

       The shed does not have running water or bathroom facilities.

              In 2021, Howard and Forland demolished the single-family home on the property and

       started constructing a new single-family home in its place.

              On November 15, 2021, Howard and Forland served a 90-day notice to terminate tenancy

       on Pinkerton. The notice stated that Howard and Forland sought “possession of the portion of the

       premises [Pinkerton] occup[ied] so that they may occupy the unit as part of their principal

       residence.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 26.

              On November 24, the City of Centralia sent Howard and Forland a letter stating that it had

       come to the City’s attention that the shed “has been converted from a storage structure to an illegal,

       non-conforming habitable space, without permits, and is occupied.” CP at 30. The letter gave

       Howard and Forland two weeks to respond, or the City would issue a notice of violation and initiate

       legal proceedings.

              On December 4, Howard and Forland sent a written response to the City stating that they

       intended “to convert the accessory structure . . . back to storage use.” CP at 32. The written

       response also told the City that they had hired an attorney to pursue eviction of an individual who

       was refusing to vacate the property.

              On February 18, 2022, Howard and Forland served a 30-day notice to terminate tenancy

       on Pinkerton, who still had not vacated the shed. This notice stated that it was being issued

                                                         2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

       pursuant to RCW 59.18.650(2)(h).1 The notice stated that Howard and Forland sought to terminate

       Pinkerton’s tenancy “because the premises has been certified or condemned as uninhabitable by a

       local agency, and/or continued habitation of the premises would subject the landlord to civil or

       criminal penalties.” CP at 28.

              On February 22, Howard and Forland filed an unlawful detainer action in superior court.

       The complaint sought a writ of restitution and any other relief the court found just and appropriate.

       Although the complaint mentioned the 30-day notice, the complaint was based solely on the 90-

       day notice. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the 90-day notice was issued pursuant to RCW

       59.18.650(2)(d).2 Further, the complaint alleged that Howard and Forland “intend[ed] to utilize

       this outbuilding as part of their principal residence.” CP at 4.

       1
         RCW 59.18.650(2)(h) provides that a landlord may evict a tenant, refuse to continue a tenancy,
       or end a periodic tenancy if

              [t]he tenant continues in possession, after the landlord has provided at least 30 days’
              advance written notice to vacate that: (i) The premises has been certified or
              condemned as uninhabitable by a local agency charged with the authority to issue
              such an order; and (ii) continued habitation of the premises would subject the
              landlord to civil or criminal penalties. However, if the terms of the local agency’s
              order do not allow the landlord to provide at least 30 days’ advance written notice,
              the landlord must provide as much advance written notice as is possible and still
              comply with the order.
       2
         RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) provides that a landlord may evict a tenant, refuse to continue a tenancy,
       or end a periodic tenancy if

              [t]he tenant continues in possession after the landlord of a dwelling unit in good
              faith seeks possession so that the owner or his or her immediate family may occupy
              the unit as that person’s principal residence and no substantially equivalent unit is
              vacant and available to house the owner or his or her immediate family in the same
              building, and the owner has provided at least 90 days’ advance written notice of the
              date the tenant’s possession is to end. There is a rebuttable presumption that the
              owner did not act in good faith if the owner or immediate family fails to occupy the

                                                         3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

               Pinkerton filed an answer, affirmative defenses, motion to dismiss, and objection to the

       issuance of a writ of restitution. Pinkerton admitted most of the relevant factual allegations.

       However, Pinkerton argued that Howard and Forland had not properly terminated his tenancy, and

       he was not guilty of unlawful detainer. Specifically, Pinkerton argued that Howard and Forland

       had not established cause to terminate the tenancy because Howard and Forland did not intend to

       occupy the shed as their primary residence. Further, Pinkerton argued that Howard and Forland

       were not acting in good faith because their stated intent to occupy the shed was disingenuous.

               Howard then filed a declaration stating that Pinkerton’s residence in the shed was depriving

       Howard of his use of the newly constructed single-family home. Specifically, Howard stated that

       the City would not issue an occupancy permit for the new home unless Pinkerton stopped using

       the shed as a bedroom.

               The superior court held a hearing on the motion for a writ of restitution. At the hearing,

       Pinkerton asked the superior court to dismiss the case, deny the writ of restitution, or set the matter

       over for trial.

               The superior court found that Howard and Forland did not want to live in the shed.

       However, the superior court granted the writ of restitution. The superior court stated that denying

       the writ of restitution would be an absurd result because Pinkerton could “basically, hold up

       [Howard and Forland] from using their new home” and Howard and Forland “can’t get into their

       residence either because of this.” Verbatim Rep. of Proc. at 12.

               unit as a principal residence for at least 60 consecutive days during the 90 days
               immediately after the tenant vacated the unit pursuant to a notice to vacate using
               this subsection (2)(d) as the cause for the lease ending.

                                                         4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

              The superior court ordered issuance of the writ of restitution.3 By ordering the writ of

       restitution, the superior court, in effect, denied Pinkerton’s motion to dismiss.       Local law

       enforcement served the writ of restitution on Pinkerton, and Pinkerton left the shed.

              Pinkerton appeals.

                                                   ANALYSIS

       A.     MOTION TO DISMISS AND WRIT OF RESTITUTION

              Pinkerton argues that the superior court erred by denying his motion to dismiss and instead

       granting a writ of restitution. We agree.

              1.      Legal Principles

              This issue requires statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Jametsky v. Olsen,

       179 Wn.2d 756, 761, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014). The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to

       determine and give effect to the legislature’s intent. Id. at 762. To determine legislative intent,

       we first look to the statute’s plain language. Id.

              If the statute’s plain language is unambiguous, we use the words’ common and ordinary

       meanings. Tesoro Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 173 Wn.2d 551, 556, 269 P.3d 1013

       (2012). “If the statute’s meaning is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning as the

       expression of what was intended.” TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 Wn.2d 273,

       281, 242 P.3d 810 (2010).

       3
         The record on appeal does not show that the superior court entered judgment for either party or
       ordered the case to proceed to trial. The record also does not show the receipt of any bond from
       Howard or Forland as required by RCW 59.18.380.

                                                            5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

               When engaging in a plain language analysis, we do not read statutory provisions in

       isolation. Citizens All. for Prop. Rts. Legal Fund v. San Juan County, 184 Wn.2d 428, 437, 359

       P.3d 753 (2015). Rather, the plain meaning of a statutory provision is derived from the context of

       the statute in which it appears, the entire act, and any related statutes that disclose legislative intent

       about the provision in question. Id.; Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at 762. We give effect to all the

       language in a statute and do not render any portion meaningless or superfluous. Spokane County

       v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 192 Wn.2d 453, 458, 430 P.3d 655 (2018).

               To determine the meaning of undefined words in a statute, we use the dictionary to discern

       the words’ plain meaning. Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863, 881, 357 P.3d 45 (2015). We

       avoid interpreting statutes in ways that result in unlikely, absurd, or strained results. Five Corners

       Fam. Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 311, 268 P.3d 892 (2011). However, the absurd results

       canon “must be applied sparingly.” Id.

               Only when a statute is ambiguous do we turn to statutory construction, legislative history

       and relevant case law to determine legislative intent. Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at 762. A statute is

       ambiguous only if “‘it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.’” Id. (quoting City of

       Seattle v. Winebrenner, 167 Wn.2d 451, 456, 219 P.3d 686 (2009)).

               2.      Statutory Interpretation of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d)

               Generally, a landlord may not evict a tenant, refuse to continue a tenancy, or end a periodic

       tenancy unless one of the causes in RCW 59.18.650(2) applies. RCW 59.18.650(1)(a). RCW

       59.18.650(2)(d) provides in relevant part that a landlord may evict a tenant, refuse to continue a

       tenancy, or end a periodic tenancy if

                                                           6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

              [t]he tenant continues in possession after the landlord of a dwelling unit in good
              faith seeks possession so that the owner or his or her immediate family may occupy
              the unit as that person’s principal residence and no substantially equivalent unit is
              vacant and available to house the owner or his or her immediate family in the same
              building, and the owner has provided at least 90 days’ advance written notice of the
              date the tenant’s possession is to end.

              The parties advance differing interpretations of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). Pinkerton argues

       that RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) requires the landlord to intend to live within the dwelling unit that the

       tenant occupies. Howard and Forland argue that RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) only requires the landlord

       to intend to live on the property where the dwelling unit is located and use the dwelling unit for

       any purpose, including storage. We agree with Pinkerton.

              The following words and terms from RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) are relevant to the statutory

       interpretation in this case: “dwelling unit,” “occupy,” “principal residence,” and “house.”

       “Dwelling unit” is the only term from this list that is statutorily defined within the Residential

       Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973, chapter 59.18 RCW. A “dwelling unit” is “a structure or that part

       of a structure which is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person or by two or

       more persons maintaining a common household, including but not limited to single-family

       residences and units of multiplexes, apartment buildings, and mobile homes.”                   RCW

       59.18.030(10). It is undisputed that Pinkerton used the shed as his home, residence, or sleeping

       place. Therefore, the shed constitutes a dwelling unit.

              “Occupy” is not statutorily defined, but the dictionary provides two potentially relevant

       definitions: “to hold possession of” and “to reside in as an owner or tenant.” WEBSTER’S THIRD

       NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1561 (2002). The remainder of the statute, discussed below,

       makes clear that “to reside in as an owner or tenant” is the definition that applies.

                                                         7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

              “Principal residence” is also not defined within the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act.4

       However, the dictionary provides that a “residence” is “the place where one actually lives or has

       his home as distinguished from his technical domicile,” “a domiciliary place of abode,” or “a

       building used as a home.”      WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 1931.

       “Principal” means “most important, consequential, or influential” or “MAIN.” WEBSTER’S THIRD

       NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 1802. Each of these definitions supports a reading of the

       statute that requires landlords to intend to live in the dwelling unit and use the dwelling unit as

       their main home.

              Importantly, RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) requires that a unit substantially equivalent to the unit

       in question must not be available to “house the owner or his or her immediate family in the same

       building.” To “house” means “to provide with a permanent dwelling place or living quarters.”

       WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 1096. This definition shows that the

       landlords must intend to use the specific unit that the tenant occupies as their permanent dwelling

       place or living quarters.

       4
         Howard and Forland argue that references to “residence” or “principal residence” in the
       Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (chapter 59.20 RCW), homestead exemption
       statutes for enforcement of judgments, and property tax exemption statutes should guide our
       interpretation of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). However, as discussed in this opinion, the plain language
       of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) makes clear that “principal residence” refers to a unit being used as a
       dwelling place or living quarters. Further, none of the statutes cited by Howard and Forland refer
       to the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act or indicate in any way that their use of “residence” or
       “principal residence” should guide the interpretation of RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). See RCW
       59.20.030(11); RCW 6.13.010, .050; RCW 84.36.383(12). Because RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) is
       unambiguous, the language in the statute controls, and we need not rely on other references in
       unrelated statutory provisions. See Jones v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 17 Wn. App. 2d 437, 445, 486
       P.3d 949 (2021) (use of terms in statutes that are unrelated and address different subjects are not
       helpful for discerning plain meaning).

                                                       8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

              Here, Howard and Forland did not intend to use the shed as their permanent dwelling place

       or living quarters, and instead intended to use the shed as storage. Thus, Howard and Forland

       could not rely on RCW 59.18.650(2)(d) to evict Pinkerton, refuse to continue Pinkerton’s tenancy,

       or end Pinkerton’s periodic tenancy.

              Howard and Forland’s unlawful detainer action was based solely on RCW

       59.18.650(2)(d).5 Therefore, the superior court erred by granting the writ of restitution, which in

       effect denied Pinkerton’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we reverse the superior court’s order

       granting the writ of restitution and remand for the superior court to grant Pinkerton’s motion to

       dismiss.6

       B.     ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

              Pinkerton, as well as Howard and Forland, request an award of attorney fees on appeal.

       RAP 18.1(a) provides, “If applicable law grants to a party the right to recover reasonable attorney

       5
         Pinkerton also argues that the superior court erred by reasoning that denying the writ of
       restitution would be an absurd result. Specifically, Pinkerton contends that, because other methods
       for evicting Pinkerton or terminating Pinkerton’s tenancy might have been available to Howard
       and Forland, the superior court erred by finding that Pinkerton could hold up Howard and Forland
       from using their new home. To advance his argument, Pinkerton argues that Howard and Forland
       could have ended the tenancy had they issued notices under other specific subsections of RCW
       59.18.650(2). However, this case only concerns the notice that Howard and Forland issued under
       RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). We do not issue advisory opinions. Lewis County v. State, 178 Wn. App.
       431, 437, 315 P.3d 550 (2013), review denied, 180 Wn.2d 1010 (2014). Additionally, we review
       issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at 761. Therefore, we do not
       address Pinkerton’s arguments regarding other statutory causes for eviction or termination of
       tenancy that Howard and Forland hypothetically could have pursued.
       6
         Pinkerton also argues that the superior court erred by granting the writ of restitution without
       either (1) entering judgment for either party or (2) ordering Howard and Forland to post bond and
       setting the case for trial. Because we reverse the superior court’s order granting the writ of
       restitution and remand for dismissal based on the superior court’s incorrect interpretation of RCW
       59.18.650(2)(d), we do not address Pinkerton’s other argument for reversal and dismissal.

                                                       9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

       fees or expenses . . . the party must request the fees or expenses as provided in this rule.” RAP

       18.1(b) states that a party must devote a section of their opening brief to argument supporting the

       request for attorney fees.

              1.      Pinkerton’s Request for Attorney Fees And Costs

              Pinkerton requests attorney fees and costs on appeal as a prevailing party under RAP 18.1,

       and cites RCW 59.18.290 and RCW 59.18.650(4) as the basis for awarding fees.

              RCW 59.18.650(4) provides that

              [a] landlord who removes a tenant or causes a tenant to be removed from a dwelling
              in any way in violation of this section is liable to the tenant for wrongful eviction,
              and the tenant prevailing in such an action is entitled to the greater of their economic
              and noneconomic damages or three times the monthly rent of the dwelling at issue,
              and reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.

              Here, because we hold that Howard and Forland wrongly removed Pinkerton from his

       dwelling, Pinkerton is the prevailing tenant in this appeal. Therefore, Pinkerton is entitled to

       attorney fees and costs on appeal under RCW 59.18.650(4).7

              2.      Howard and Forland’s Request for Attorney Fees

              Howard and Forland do not devote a section of their opening brief to argument supporting

       their request for attorney fees and only request attorney fees in their one-sentence conclusion. For

       this reason alone, Howard and Forland’s request must fail. See RAP 18.1(b).

       7
         Because we hold that Pinkerton is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal under RCW
       59.18.650(4), we do not address Pinkerton’s request for attorney fees and costs on appeal under
       RCW 59.18.290.

                                                        10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 56797-1-II

                                               CONCLUSION

              We reverse the superior court’s order granting the writ of restitution and remand for the

       superior court to dismiss the case. We also award attorney fees and costs on appeal to Pinkerton

       and deny Howard and Forland’s request for attorney fees on appeal.

                                                          Lee, J.
        We concur:

        Glasgow, C.J.

        Cruser, J.

                                                     11