Nyman v. Hanley, 491 P.3d 974

Hanley rented Nyman’s backyard cottage under a lease running July 2019–July 2020 that did not convert to a month-to-month tenancy.
Hanley fell behind on rent; Nyman served a pay-or-vacate notice in February 2020 and began eviction proceedings in March 2020.
Governor Inslee issued a statewide eviction moratorium in March 2020 (later amended to permit owner-occupancy evictions); after that amendment Nyman served a 60-day written notice to occupy, asking Hanley to vacate by Sept 1, 2020.
Hanley’s lease expired in July 2020 but he remained in the unit past the notice date; the CDC issued a federal eviction moratorium in September 2020 that bars many evictions for "covered persons" but excludes evictions for tenants who violate "any other contractual obligation."
The trial court found Hanley’s post-expiration holdover violated a contractual obligation and issued a writ of restitution; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding the holdover fit the CDC exclusion and therefore the CDC moratorium did not bar the eviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nyman)	Defendant's Argument (Hanley)	Held
Whether a tenant’s post-expiration holdover violates the CDC order’s exclusion for "any other contractual obligation"	Holdover after a lease that expressly expired violates the lease and thus the CDC exclusion	The CDC phrase "any other contractual obligation" should be read narrowly to exclude passive/no-fault conduct like expiration-based holdover	The court applied the CDC exclusion broadly: an express lease term requiring vacatur was a contractual obligation and Hanley’s holdover violated it; CDC protection does not apply
Whether the CDC order applies instead of Washington’s proclamation here	Nyman: state proclamation allows owner-move-in evictions; federal order would apply only if tenant is a covered person and not excluded	Hanley: CDC would protect him as a covered person meeting hardship criteria	Court: CDC could supersede the state rule in some cases, but because Hanley fell within the CDC contractual-obligation exclusion, the CDC did not bar this eviction
Standard for reviewing the regulatory/contractual question and treating undisputed facts	Nyman: de novo review of statutory/regulatory questions; treat undisputed facts as verities	Hanley: (implicitly) argued facts/legal standard did not yield exclusion	Court: reviewed de novo and treated undisputed facts as verities; applied contract-law principles to lease language

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA, 188 Wn.2d 80 (2017) (de novo review and interpret administrative regulations using statutory-construction rules)
Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Westlake Park Assocs., 42 Wn. App. 269 (1985) (leases are contracts; contract-construction rules apply)
In re Estates of Wahl, 99 Wn.2d 828 (1983) (contracting parties’ intent is derived from contract language)
State v. Escalante, 195 Wn.2d 526 (2020) (treat undisputed facts as verities on review)
Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (2014) (standards for interpreting administrative regulations)
Overlake Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Health, 170 Wn.2d 43 (2010) (administrative regulations interpreted like statutes)
State v. Lorenz, 152 Wn.2d 22 (2004) (procedural treatment of facts on review)
FPA Crescent Assocs., LLC v. Jamie’s LLC, 190 Wn. App. 666 (2015) (distinguishing expiration of a lease term from unilateral termination)