Martin Luther King, Hda, Inc v. Laura C. Sealey, 49483-3

Background

Tenant Laura Sealey leased residential property from Martin Luther King, H.D.A., Inc. (MLK H.D.A.) and complained about a rodent infestation and other maintenance issues.
MLK H.D.A. served a 20‑day termination notice on May 6, 2016 for multiple lease violations; Sealey later failed to pay rent for June and July and received additional notices.
A May 5 letter from the Tacoma‑Pierce County Housing Justice Project (sent on Sealey's behalf) complained about the infestation but did not reference a March 17 letter Sealey claimed to have sent earlier; MLK H.D.A. disputes receiving the March 17 letter.
Exterminator inspection found rodents caused in part by overgrown weeds/shrubs and Sealey’s failure to maintain the yard; MLK H.D.A. attempted to provide extermination access but Sealey did not return calls or permit entry.
MLK H.D.A. obtained judgment in an unlawful detainer action, a writ of restitution, release of rent funds held in court registry, and an award of attorney fees and costs; Sealey appealed asserting errors in findings/conclusions and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (MLK H.D.A.)	Defendant's Argument (Sealey)	Held
Whether challenged factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Findings are supported by trial testimony, letters, and inspection reports	Many findings lack record support; some contradict evidence	Court: majority of challenged findings are either verities on appeal or supported by substantial evidence; affirmed
Whether eviction was retaliatory	MLK H.D.A. issued notices before receiving tenant advocacy letter; tenant was months behind on rent	Sealey contends eviction was retaliation for repair requests and complaints	Court: no retaliation—initial May 6 notice preceded MLK H.D.A.'s knowledge of the Housing Justice Project letter and later notices were for rent arrears
Whether tenant’s failure to maintain premises caused infestation	MLK H.D.A. relied on exterminator report tying infestation to overgrowth and lack of yard maintenance	Sealey claimed she had permitted pest control or that infestation was landlord’s responsibility	Court: findings show overgrown vegetation and failure to mow materially contributed to infestation; conclusion supported
Claims re: release of registry funds, attorney fees, writ of restitution, and ineffective assistance	MLK H.D.A. entitled to registry funds, fees, costs, and restitution under judgment; ineffective assistance not a ground in civil appeal	Sealey argued funds release should have been stayed, that judgments cause hardship, and counsel was ineffective	Court: funds were released before Sealey moved for stay; constitutional and ineffective‑counsel claims inadequately briefed/unsupported; awards and writ affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App. 250 (appellate rule enforcement and record adequacy) (addresses consequences of inadequate record on appeal)
Casterline v. Roberts, 168 Wn. App. 376 (bench trial review standard) (explains substantial‑evidence review after bench trial)
Harris v. Urell, 133 Wn. App. 130 (substantial evidence standard) (defines substantial evidence as convincing a fair‑minded person)
Korst v. McMahon, 136 Wn. App. 202 (evaluation of trial findings) (applies substantial‑evidence review)
Am. Nursery Prods., Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards, 115 Wn.2d 217 (findings supporting conclusions) (addresses whether findings support conclusions of law)
Morris v. Woodside, 101 Wn.2d 812 (treating findings as verities) (holds inadequate record requires treating some findings as verities on appeal)
Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426 (civil matters and ineffective counsel) (notes ineffective assistance of counsel is not a basis for reversal in civil cases)
Bulzomi v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 72 Wn. App. 522 (insufficient record precludes review) (reiterates appellate review limits with inadequate record)
City of Spokane v. Taxpayers of City of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 91 (constitutional issues briefing) (requires considered briefing to preserve constitutional claims)
State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (issues inadequately briefed) (court will not review inadequately briefed constitutional claims)