PENDLETON PLACE, LLC, Respondent, v. KALEINAINOA ASENTISTA; and all other unauthorized occupants of 5454
No. 58118-3-II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
January 9, 2024
PUBLISHED OPINION
MAXA, J. – Kaleinainoa Asentista appeals the trial court‘s order directing issuance of a writ of restitution granting Pendleton Place, LLC possession of Asentista‘s apartment unit after he allegedly materially breached the terms of his lease. Pendleton Place operates a federally subsidized housing facility that serves adults who are chronically homeless, where Asentista rented a unit.
Pendleton Place served Asentista with four 10-day notices to comply or vacate the
Asentista argues that the trial court erred in entering the writ of restitution order because Pendleton Place failed to provide him with a 30-day notice to vacate as provided by a section of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
We hold that the four 10-day notices to comply or vacate did not meet the 30-day notice requirement set forth in
FACTS
Background
Pendleton Place is a housing facility in Bremerton. It serves adults who are chronically homeless. Kitsap Mental Health (KMH) provides 24-hour staffing for the residents of Pendleton Place. Pendleton Place participates in the federal low-income housing tax credit program.
In June 2022, Asentista signed a lease for a unit at Pendleton Place.
Pre-Eviction Notices
On July 22, 2022, Pendleton Place served Asentista with three 10-day notices to comply or vacate. Each notice stated, “You are hereby notified under
The first notice stated that on July 21 KMH staff witnessed Asentista screaming down the hallways and making intimidating gestures that made residents and staff feel threatened. The second notice stated that on July 21 Asentista breached his lease when he entered the common area while not wearing a shirt. The third notice said that on July 22 Asentista breached his lease when he threatened another resident and then followed the resident down the hallway.
On August 19, Pendleton Place served Asentista with a fourth 10-day notice to comply or vacate. The notice stated, “You are hereby notified under
The notice referenced three incidents. First, on August 13 KMH staff witnessed Asentista yelling threats toward a resident in their window. Second, on August 14 KMH staff and a security officer witnessed Asentista sсreaming from his room and making threats to other residents. Third, KMH staff and another security officer heard Asentista yelling threats from his unit with the door open.
Unlawful Detainer Action
On September 14, Pendleton Place filed an unlawful detainer action in superior court. The complaint attached the 10-day notices as well as several incident reports that involved Asentista. Pendleton Place then caused Asentista to be served with an eviction
Asentista moved to dismiss the unlawful detainer action. He argued that Pendleton Place failed to follow proper notification procedures in the lease regarding his allegеd breaches of the terms of the lease. In the alternative, Asentista argued that the unlawful detainer action should be dismissed because Pendleton Place failed to comply with notice requirements of
Aftеr two show cause hearings, the trial court denied Asentista‘s motion to dismiss and request for a trial. Regarding the
Asentista appeals the trial court‘s order granting the writ of restitution.
ANALYSIS
A. APPLICATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1) 30-DAY NOTICE
Asentista argues that the trial court erred in granting the writ of restitution bеcause Pendleton Place failed to comply with the 30-day notice requirement in
1. Relevant Eviction Notice Statutes
Congress passed the CARES Act in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, part of which includes protections for tenants in federally subsidized housing. See CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020).
During the 120-day рeriod beginning on March 27, 2020, the lessor of a covered dwelling may not (1) make, or cause to be made, any filing with the court of jurisdiction to initiate a legal action to recover possession of the covered dwelling from the tenant for nonpayment of rent or other fees or charges; or (2) charge fees, penalties, or other charges to the tenant related to such nonpayment of rent.
(Emphasis added.)
The lessor of a covered dwelling unit (1) may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the lessor provides the tеnant with a notice to vacate; and (2) may not issue a notice to vacate under paragraph (1) until after the expiration of the period described in subsection (b).
(Emphasis added.)
Pendleton Place does not dispute that
A trial court cannot grant relief in an unlawful detainer action if the landlord has not provided the required notice to vacate or cure. Kitsap County Consol. Hous. Auth. v. Henry-Levingston, 196 Wn. App. 688, 699, 385 P.3d 188 (2016). “Such noncompliance prevents the trial court frоm exercising its jurisdiction.” Id.
2. Statutory Interpretation
We view questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Ekelmann v. City of Poulsbo, 22 Wn. App. 2d 798, 807, 513 P.3d 840 (2022). When interpreting a federal statute, our objective is to ascertain the intent of Congress. Henry-Levingston, 196 Wn. App. at 701. “We consider the language of the statute, the context of the statute, related statutes, and the statutory scheme as a whole.” Ekelmann, 22 Wn. App. 2d at 807.
If the plain statutory language is unambiguous, we apply that language as written. Dzaman v. Gowman, 18 Wn. App. 2d 469, 479, 491 P.3d 1012 (2021). We cannot use statutory interpretation to add language that the legislature did not use. Miller v. Dep‘t of Revenue, 27 Wn. App. 2d 415, 423, 532 P.3d 187 (2023). And this court does not “rewrite plain statutory language under the guise of construction.” McColl v. Anderson, 6 Wn. App. 2d 88, 91, 429 P.3d 1113 (2018).
3. Plain Language of 15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1)
Pendleton Place disputes this interpretation, making two arguments. First, Pendleton Place clаims that
The Congressional Research Service (CRS)2 issued a report addressing this question. MAGGIE MCCARTY & DAVID H. CARPENTER, CONG. RSCH. SERV., “CARES ACT EVICTION MORATORIUM,” (April 7, 2020), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320#:~:text=Section%204024%20of%20the%20CARES,assistance%20or%20federally%20related%20financing [https://perma.cc/YRK4-4BE9]. The report states:
In contrast to the eviction and late fee protections of Section [9058(b)], which are expressly limited to nonpayment, Section [9058(c)] does not expressly tie the noticе to vacate requirement to a particular cause. Thus, Section [9058(c)] arguably prohibits landlords from being able to force a tenant to vacate a covered dwelling for nonpayment or any other reason until after August 24, 2020 (i.e., 120 days after enactment, plus 30 days after notice is provided).
Id. at 1. Although CRS reports are not binding on this court, they can provide valuable insight into the legislative intent behind federal laws. See Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 688 n.15 (9th Cir. 2017), rev‘d on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 201 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2018) (relying on CRS report to interpret statute).
Pendleton Place‘s argument would require us to add the limiting language in
Second, Pendleton Place argues that it complied with
Division One addressed this issue in Sherwood Auburn. In that case, the landlord served the tenants with a 14-day notice to pay or vacate the premises when they fell behind on their rent. Id. at 668.3 Over 30 days after service of the notice, the landlord filed an unlawful detainer action. Id. at 669. After holding a show cause hearing, the trial court issued a writ of restitution. Id.
On appeal, the landlord argued that
The court rejected this argument. Id. at 673-75. The court conсluded that “[t]he plain language of the statute . . . belies such an interpretation. The CARES Act notice provision clearly prohibits the lessor – not a state trial court – from requiring a tenant to vacate a covered housing unit prior to expiration of the notice period.” Id. at 673. The court stated, “Here, Congress unambiguously provided that ‘the lessor’ may not require a tenant to vacate prior to providing a 30-day notice.” Id.
The court reasoned that if
Pendleton Place argues that the analysis in Sherwood Auburn should be limited to cases involving nonpayment of rent because the eviction in that case was for nonpayment. But as discussed above,
Pendleton Place also makes a slightly different argument than the landlord made in Sherwood Auburn. Pendleton Place argues that it complied with
B. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL
Asentista requests attorney fees on appeal under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA), chapter
RAP 18.1(a) provides that a party may have a right to recover reasonable attorney fees on appeal if applicable law grants the prevailing party the right to do so. The RLTA authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court‘s order directing issuance of a writ of restitution and remand for the trial court to vacate the writ of restitution order and dismiss the unlawful detainer action.
MAXA, J.
We concur:
GLASGOW, CJ.
CRUSER, J.