Btna, Llc, Res. v. Formosa Brothers International Llc, Apps.
75212-0
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 26, 2017Background
- BTNA LLC (landlord) sued Formosa Brothers International LLC (tenant/sublessee) in a commercial unlawful detainer after alleged unpaid rent and attempted service of a three-day notice.
- At a show-cause hearing, the court found the initial three-day notice was improperly served, denied a writ of restitution without prejudice, and declined to dismiss the action at that time.
- BTNA served a new three-day notice, Formosa Brothers paid the amounts due, and BTNA moved for voluntary dismissal under CR 41(a); the trial court granted the dismissal on April 19, 2016.
- On May 10, 2016 the trial court entered an order awarding attorney fees and costs to BTNA as the “prevailing party” under the parties’ sublease; Formosa Brothers appealed that order.
- The key legal question: whether a plaintiff-landlord’s voluntary nonsuit under CR 41(a) in an unlawful detainer makes the landlord the “prevailing party” under a lease attorney-fee clause, or whether the defendant-tenant is the prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BTNA) | Defendant's Argument (Formosa Brothers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the “prevailing party” under the lease fee provision after BTNA voluntarily nonsuited under CR 41(a)? | BTNA argued it was the prevailing party (pointing to other authorities and arguing substantial success). | Formosa Brothers argued a voluntary dismissal under CR 41(a) makes the defendant the prevailing party; therefore fees should be awarded to the tenant. | The court held Formosa Brothers (defendant/tenant) was the prevailing party because a CR 41(a) voluntary nonsuit by the plaintiff renders the defendant prevailing for purposes of the contractual fee clause. |
| Whether 1st Avenue South Investments v. Green Depot controls here to support BTNA as prevailing party | BTNA relied on Green Depot to argue it prevailed. | Formosa Brothers argued Green Depot is distinguishable because it did not involve a CR 41(a) nonsuit and a separate breach-of-contract action was pending. | The court distinguished Green Depot and found it inapplicable; it did not control the outcome. |
| Whether the landlord’s federal civil-rights precedent (Lefemine) governs the state-law fee issue | BTNA cited Lefemine to support its position. | Formosa Brothers implicitly argued federal precedent was irrelevant to Washington contract-fee rules in this context. | The court declined to apply or rely on the federal civil-rights decision to alter Washington law on prevailing-party fee awards here. |
| Award of fees on appeal and costs | BTNA sought fees if it prevailed; also requested sanctions for a separate procedural motion. | Formosa Brothers sought appellate fees under the lease. | The court awarded appellate fees and costs to Formosa Brothers and remanded to the trial court to determine reasonable amounts with findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawk v. Branjes, 97 Wn. App. 776 (affirming fees to tenant after landlord’s voluntary dismissal)
- Walji v. Candyco, Inc., 57 Wn. App. 284 (holding defendant prevailing when plaintiff takes voluntary nonsuit)
- 1st Ave. S. Invs. v. Green Depot WA Pac. Coast LLC, 179 Wn. App. 777 (distinguished; involved separate breach action and no clear CR 41(a) nonsuit)
- Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398 (requires findings to support fee awards)
- Lefemine v. Wideman, 568 U.S. 1 (federal civil-rights fees case cited by BTNA but not adopted here)