543 P.3d 891
Wash. Ct. App.2024Background
- The King County Housing Authority served Angela Knight and other occupants of a covered dwelling with a 3-day notice to vacate, alleging nuisance and criminal activity, not nonpayment of rent.
- The Housing Authority initiated an unlawful detainer action when the tenants did not vacate.
- The superior court commissioner dismissed the action, holding that the CARES Act required 30 days’ notice for all evictions from covered dwellings based on the court’s earlier decision in Sherwood Auburn LLC v. Pinzon.
- The Housing Authority appealed, arguing this was a misreading of the CARES Act, which only requires 30 days’ notice for nonpayment of rent.
- The tenants did not appear or participate in the appellate proceedings; the Housing Justice Project appeared as amicus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CARES Act require 30 days' notice for all evictions from covered dwellings? | Only requires 30 days’ notice for nonpayment of rent evictions. | 30 days’ notice required for any eviction from a covered dwelling. | The Act only requires 30 days’ notice for nonpayment of rent evictions. |
| Interpretation of "notice to vacate" in § 4024 of the CARES Act | Applies only to nonpayment of rent, based on statutory structure and context. | Applies broadly to all bases for eviction since Act does not specify a particular reason. | Plain meaning and statutory context support Housing Authority’s interpretation: limited to nonpayment cases. |
| Role of legislative history and external sources (e.g., CRS Report) in interpreting the Act | Congressional intent and subsequent legislation show intent for economic relief, not broad eviction reform. | CRS Report supports possible broad reading; silence around eviction basis signals inclusion of all types. | Plain language governs; CRS Report is post-enactment and only highlights ambiguity, not intent. |
| Precedential value of Pinzon and decisions from other jurisdictions | Pinzon doesn't resolve scope; other courts limit 30-day notice requirement to nonpayment cases. | Pinzon supports 30-day notice for all evictions; Division II court agreed. | Pinzon inapplicable; other persuasive authority supports Housing Authority’s interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherwood Auburn LLC v. Pinzon, 24 Wn. App. 2d 664 (Ct. App. Wash. 2022) (interpreted the CARES Act's notice provision narrowly, but did not resolve the specific issue in this case)
- Kitsap County Consol. Hous. Auth. v. Henry-Levingston, 196 Wn. App. 688 (Ct. App. Wash. 2016) (articulates principles of statutory interpretation for federal enactments)
- State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556 (Wash. 2008) (statutory interpretation should avoid absurd results)
- Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874 (Wash. 1995) (legislative titles may be considered when interpreting statutes)