Ronald Travis Roth v. Hempzen Enterprises, Ltd.
34747-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Roth leased 1.9 acres to HempZen for a two-year commercial cannabis operation; lease required tenant to keep premises free of any liens and included a prevailing-party attorney-fee clause.
- HempZen hired Mr. Electric to install a security system; disputes over work and payment followed.
- Mr. Electric recorded a mechanic’s lien in December 2015 against the leased property naming HempZen and Roth.
- Roth served a 10-day notice to cure or vacate (May 2016) for failure to remove liens; Roth filed an unlawful detainer action afterward.
- HempZen produced a settlement check and later a release of lien, but the lien removal occurred after the ten-day cure period and after the court commissioner issued a writ of restitution.
- The commissioner and then the superior court granted the writ; HempZen’s post-judgment bond under RCW 59.12.200 stayed execution pending appeal; the court awarded attorney fees to Roth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roth) | Defendant's Argument (HempZen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the superior court erred by striking HempZen’s supplemental declaration on revision | The court properly limited revision review to the commissioner record per RCW 2.24.050 | Supplemental evidence showed cure and should have been considered | No error — trial court correctly struck post-commissioner evidence; revision is limited to the commissioner record |
| 2. Whether writ of restitution was improper because cure was imminent | Landlord complied with RCW 59.12.030: tenant breached, got 10 days, did not cure | Cure was forthcoming (settlement and check); ten days wasn’t a meaningful opportunity given practical impediments | No error — tenant had remedies (bond in lieu of lien, summary hearing to remove lien) and a meaningful opportunity to cure within statute’s ten days |
| 3. Whether Roth breached implied covenant of good faith by pursuing eviction | Exercising contractual/statutory rights is not bad faith | Pursuing eviction while cure was imminent was unfair and in bad faith | No error — no identified contractual discretion abused; filing unlawful detainer did not violate good faith covenant |
| 4. Whether court should have granted relief against forfeiture under RCW 59.12.190 | Roth: not raised below, so appellate review is waived | HempZen: motion for revision and declarations sufficed as a petition for relief | Not considered — issue not raised or petitioned for in trial court, so appellate court declines to address it |
| 5. Whether the court erred denying HempZen leave to post a RCW 59.12.100 bond to stay execution | RCW 59.12.100 bond should apply to stay writ execution | Statute applies only to prejudgment (prehearing) writs; postjudgment stay governed by RCW 59.12.200 | No error — RCW 59.12.100 pertains to prejudgment writs; postjudgment bond under .200 is proper mechanism |
| 6. Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | HempZen sought fees below and on appeal | Roth asked for fees on appeal per lease and RAP 18.1 | Fees awarded to Roth — prevailing party under the lease and on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106 (Wash. 2004) (appellate review is of the superior court’s ruling, not the commissioner’s)
- Badgett v. Security State Bank, 116 Wn.2d 563 (Wash. 1991) (existence and scope of implied covenant of good faith in contracts)
- Rekhter v. Dep’t of Social & Health Servs., 180 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 2014) (good-faith duty arises in connection with contractual discretion)
- In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.2d 979 (Wash. 1999) (superior court may not consider new evidence on motion for revision absent remand)
- Daniels v. Ward, 35 Wn. App. 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983) (lease clause requiring removal of "all liens" obligates tenant to remove even invalid liens)
- Port of Longview v. Int’l Raw Materials, Ltd., 96 Wn. App. 431 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (discusses prejudgment writs and bond procedures under chapter 59.12 RCW)
- Perez v. Garcia, 148 Wn. App. 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (invalidating local rule that conflicted with RCW 2.24.050 regarding new evidence on revision)
- Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn.2d 612 (Wash. 1997) (definition of "prevailing party" for contractual attorney-fee clauses)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (application of prevailing-party concept to attorney fees)