Peninsula Housing Authority, V Lee Ann Daniels
49772-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Tenant Lee Ann Daniels, a disabled woman living on roughly $1,000/month (spousal support in lieu of SSI), fell behind on rent and PHA filed an unlawful detainer action.
- Daniels paid the debt into the court registry after a show-cause hearing; PHA obtained a writ but did not execute it after funds were deposited.
- PHA sought $2,246.40 in attorney fees under the lease clause: “Court shall award attorney fees and costs incurred as appropriate.”
- Trial court initially denied full fees based on Daniels’s indigency, then on reconsideration concluded fees were mandatory but reduced the award to $100, reasoning the lease’s “as appropriate” language allowed consideration of tenant’s financial condition.
- PHA appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lease authorized considering Daniels’s finances and whether record supported the court’s finding of her inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PHA) | Defendant's Argument (Daniels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease-authorized attorney fees may be reduced based on tenant’s ability to pay | Lease and RCW 4.84.330 mandate award of fees; court limited to amount reasonableness and cannot consider tenant’s finances | Lease permits equitable consideration; awarding full fees would be inequitable given indigency | Court: "as appropriate" in lease is ambiguous and permits considering tenant’s finances; reduction was permitted |
| Whether superior court relied impermissibly on criminal indigency precedent (Wakefield/Blazina) | Wakefield and similar criminal-indigent precedents do not apply to civil contract enforcement; court erred to rely on them | Court may be guided by the trend to avoid judicially imposed impoverishment; such considerations are valid in civil context when contract language permits | Court did not need to decide Wakefield’s applicability; relied on lease interpretation instead |
| Whether the requested fees were objectively reasonable so trial court had to award full amount | Once fees are deemed reasonable, mandatory award follows and amount cannot be reduced based on defendant’s status | Reasonableness and appropriateness are distinct; something reasonable can be inappropriate given particular circumstances | Court found fees objectively reasonable but still "inappropriate" to impose in full given tenant’s finances; reduction not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether record supports finding that Daniels could not pay greater fees | Record lacks sufficient financial detail to justify reduction | Evidence of disability, SSI eligibility, $1,000/month support often late, and history of difficulty paying rent shows likely inability to pay | Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding; reduction to $100 upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 (Wash. 2016) (criminal indigency and limits on legal financial obligations discussed)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (judicial consideration of defendant’s financial condition to avoid impoverishment)
- Chuong Van Pham v. Seattle City Light, 159 Wn.2d 527 (Wash. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for attorney-fee awards)
- Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133 (Wash. 1997) (American rule on attorney fees and exceptions by contract or statute)
- Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581 (Wash. 1983) (framework for assessing reasonable attorney fees)
- Panorama Vill. Homeowners Ass’n v. Golden Rule Roofing, Inc., 102 Wn. App. 422 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (standard of review for trial court findings of fact)