Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison
364 P.3d 76
Wash.2015Background
- Norma Tison signed a written, one-year mobile‑home‑lot lease (standard MHCW form) in 2001 that included a negotiated handwritten rent‑cap: “Every other year, rent will be raised no more than $10.00 for remaining tenancy.”
- Western Plaza LLC purchased the park in 2008 and sought larger rent increases in 2009 and 2011; Tison paid amounts consistent with the rent cap and Western Plaza rejected the later payment and filed unlawful detainer.
- Trial court ruled for Western Plaza on cross‑motions for summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court granted review.
- Key legal questions: whether the rent‑cap clause is enforceable under the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord‑Tenant Act (MHLTA), chapter 59.20 RCW, and whether the lease complies with the statute of frauds.
- The Supreme Court majority held the rent‑cap clause enforceable under the MHLTA, concluded the MHLTA’s statute‑of‑frauds provision (RCW 59.20.060) governs mobile‑home‑lot leases (no acknowledgement required), and awarded fees to Tison; there is a dissent arguing the general tenancy statute of frauds (requiring acknowledgement for leases >1 year) still applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tison) | Defendant's Argument (Western Plaza) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of rent‑cap clause under MHLTA | Rent‑cap is a valid contractual limit on frequency/amount of increases and is not prohibited by MHLTA | MHLTA permits landlords to increase rent with statutorily required notice; a clause limiting increases conflicts with MHLTA | Held: Rent‑cap permissible; MHLTA does not prohibit a properly executed limit on rent increases (majority) |
| Statute of Frauds applicability to MHLTA leases | RCW 59.20.060 is the MHLTA‑specific statute of frauds: written and signed leases suffice; acknowledgement not required | General tenancy statute of frauds (RCW 59.04.010) applies, requiring acknowledgement for leases >1 year, so unacknowledged long‑term provisions are unenforceable | Held: RCW 59.20.060 governs mobile‑home‑lot leases; writing and signatures satisfied statute of frauds—no acknowledgement required (majority) |
| Whether rent‑cap runs with the land / binds successor owner | Rent‑cap limits landlord’s rights that touch and concern the land and thus runs with the land | Clause is personal to prior owner and does not run with the land | Held: Rent‑cap touches and concerns the land under MHLTA and is enforceable against Western Plaza |
| Attorney fees entitlement | Prevailing party provision in MHLTA and lease entitles successful tenant to fees | Opposing party disputes merits | Held: Tison entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal under RCW 59.20.110 |
Key Cases Cited
- McGahuey v. Hwang, 104 Wn. App. 176 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (describes RCW 59.20.090(2) as a limitation on rent increases)
- Little‑Mountain Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mountain Estates MHC, LLC, 169 Wn.2d 265 (Wash. 2010) (discusses MHLTA context and related landlord‑tenant principles)
- Labor Hall Ass’n v. Danielsen, 24 Wn.2d 75 (Wash. 1945) (analysis of general tenancy statute of frauds and acknowledgement requirement)
- Gillette v. Zakarison, 68 Wn. App. 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (interpreting MHLTA automatic renewal and one‑year presumption)
- 1515‑1519 Lakeview Blvd. Condo. Ass’n v. Apt. Sales Corp., 146 Wn.2d 194 (Wash. 2002) (doctrine whether a covenant "touches and concerns" the land)
- Berg v. Ting, 125 Wn.2d 544 (Wash. 1995) (part‑performance doctrine as an equitable exception to statute of frauds)