King Cnty. v. Tahraoui

1

KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Respondent, v. ABDULHAFID TAHRAOUI, individually, and AMANA GLOBAL COMPANY, a sole proprietorship, Appellants.

No. 82671-9-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

November 28, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Hazelrigg, J.

Abdulhafid Tahraoui, owner of Amana Global Company, appeals an order authorizing the issuance of a writ of restitution and orders denying reconsideration or vacation of the writ. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

In December 2015, Tahraoui signed a five-year commercial lease agreement for Amana Global Company to occupy a portion of a warehouse and an adjacent fenced storage yard at 22230 Russell Road in Kent (the Property). The lease was set to expire on August 31, 2021, but automatically terminated upon condemnation, by its own terms.

In May 2016, King County purchased the Property in order to construct the Lower Russell Levee Setback Project. The County determined that Tahraoui was a displaced person eligible for relocation benefits authorized by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs Act ("Uniform Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 4621, and the Washington State Relocation Assistance Act ("Relocation Act"), chapter 8.26 RCW, and chapter 468-100 WAC. In August 2016, King County sent Tahraoui a letter notifying that he: (1) was eligible for relocation assistance, (2) would need to move from the Property, but would "not be required to vacate the property before December 5, 2016 which is at least 90 days from the date you receive this letter," and, (3) was entitled to moving and reestablishment expenses.

Thereafter King County and Tahraoui began disputing the amount of his relocation benefits. In January 2017, King County sent Tahraoui a second letter of eligibility, entitlements, and a 90-day notice to vacate, which instructed that he would not be required to vacate before April 30, 2017. While the parties continued negotiations until mid-2018, they could not agree on terms for Tahraoui's voluntarily relocation. By the end of negotiations, Tahraoui was seeking at least $1.4 million in relocation expenses.

In July 2018, King County, along with the King County Flood Control Zone District, filed a petition for condemnation seeking to appropriate Tahraoui's leasehold interest in the Property. Over a year later, in November 2019, the trial court entered a "Stipulated Final Judgment and Decree of Appropriation in Condemnation and Order of Disbursement" (the Decree) that, among other things, terminated any leasehold interest Tahraoui had to the Property as of November 12, 2019. Tahraoui sought discretionary review of that order, but this court denied his request and our Supreme Court denied his petition for review for lack of standing.^[1] On November 22, 2019, King County served Tahraoui with a notice to vacate, requiring him to leave the Property by December 31, 2019. King County also noted that if Tahraoui failed to comply with this notice, it would commence an unlawful detainer action. Tahraoui, however, refused to vacate.

In January 2020, King County filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and an eviction summons, seeking a writ of restitution directing the sheriff to restore possession of the Property to King County as well as a judgment against Tahraoui for its attorney fees and related costs. Two weeks later, Tahraoui filed an answer to the unlawful detainer complaint and raised affirmative defenses of retaliation and King County's failure to pay his relocation benefits under both the Uniform and Relocation Acts.

King County did not immediately request a show cause hearing in the unlawful detainer action but, instead, resumed negotiations with Tahraoui to voluntarily relocate.^[2] In the summer of 2020, Tahraoui executed a lease at a facility in Chehalis, and King County committed to paying his moving expenses: up to $50,000 in reestablishment expenses, $32,500 for the first four months of rent and utilities at the new facility, and $2,500 for site search expenses. To aid him in securing the new facility, King County made an advance payment to Tahraoui of $41,250 prior to executing the new lease, and a second payment of $41,250 to Tahraoui before he had made any improvements to the new facility, but conditioned on his signing of a new lease elsewhere. Despite King County agreeing to provide $85,000 to compensate for relocation expenses, Tahraoui remained on the Property.

In February 2021, a trial court commissioner issued an order requiring Tahraoui to appear for a hearing to show cause why a writ of restitution restoring King County to possession of the Property should not be issued.

On March 12, 2021, the commissioner issued an order (1) finding that the Decree, entered in November 2019, appropriated Tahraoui's leasehold, which entitled King County to have Tahraoui evicted from the Property, (2) instructing the court clerk to issue a writ of restitution directing the sheriff to evict Tahraoui, (3) declining to award King County costs and fees, and (4) concluding that the balance of King County's claims, "including but not limited to losses that may accrue from unpaid past or future rent or physical damage or destruction to the Premises and other damage flowing directly or indirectly from Defendants' actions are preserved" for a future hearing. Four days later, the trial court clerk issued a writ of restitution (the Writ) directing the King County Sheriff to evict Tahraoui from the Property.

On March 22, 2021, the sheriff posted the Writ at the warehouse on the Property. That same day, Tahraoui filed a motion seeking revision of the commissioner's decision and to vacate the judgment, quash the Writ, and dismiss the unlawful detainer action entirely. He also filed an emergency motion requesting a stay of execution of the Writ until the hearing of his motion for reconsideration, which was scheduled for April 23, 2021. On March 24, 2021, a commissioner issued an order staying execution of the Writ until April 23, contingent on Tahraoui posting a $30,000 bond, which he immediately did.

On April 23, 2021, the trial judge heard oral argument on the motion for revision. A week later, the judge issued an order denying Tahraoui's motion for revision, affirming the commissioner's issuance of the Writ and judgment against Tahraoui, and extending the stay of execution of the Writ, at Tahraoui's request, until May 7, 2021.^[3] The judge ordered that Tahraoui's "remaining rights and claims" against King County were "preserved and specifically reserved," but also expressly affirmed the Commissioner's prior rejection of his asserted defense of retaliation and argument that "failure to provide relocation benefits is a defense to an unlawful detainer action." Tahraoui filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying revision, but the judge denied it.

After Tahraoui failed to post a bond to further extend the stay of execution, the sheriff evicted Tahraoui from the Property on May 10, 2021. The next day, Tahraoui filed an emergency motion before another trial court commissioner asking that the Writ be vacated and that he be restored to possession of the Property. After the commissioner denied the motion to vacate, Tahraoui timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

I. Mootness

At the outset we address King County's motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. King County contends that this court cannot provide the relief Tahraoui seeks which, it claims, is possession of the warehouse on the Property that was destroyed during the summer of 2021.

"A case is technically moot if the court cannot provide the basic relief originally sought, or can no longer provide effective relief." Snohomish County v. State, 69 Wn.App. 655, 660, 850 P.2d 546 (1993) (citation omitted). Lack of possession does not necessarily moot an unlawful detainer action. Hous. Auth. of City of Pasco & Franklin County v. Pleasant, 126 Wn.App. 382, 388, 109 P.3d 422 (2005). When a tenant does not concede the right of possession, which is the case here, the tenant has the right to have the issue determined. Id. at 389. Moreover, if a tenant has a monetary stake in the outcome of the case, like the judgment entered against Tahraoui, our Supreme Court has said that "[o]bviously [such a] case is not moot." McGary v. Westlake Invs., 99 Wn.2d 280, 284, 661 P.2d 971 (1983).

Because the trial court entered a judgment against Tahraoui and he seeks relief beyond restoration of possession, this case is not moot. Thus, we will consider the merits of this appeal. Tahraoui raises numerous assignments of error. We address them individually, though in an order different than that set out in briefing.

II. Termination of the Lease Agreement

Notwithstanding the condemnation action, in which the trial court appropriated the leasehold interest in the Property to King County, Tahraoui contends that the lease agreement did not terminate according to its terms. We disagree.

"Leases are conveyances whose covenants are interpreted under contract law." Lane v. Wahl, 101 Wn.App. 878, 883, 6 P.3d 621 (2000). We interpret contracts as matters of law and review them de novo. Kim v. Moffett, 156 Wn.App. 689, 697, 234 P.3d 279 (2010).

When interpreting an agreement, we attempt "to determine the parties' intent by focusing on the objective manifestations of the agreement, rather than on the unexpressed subjective intent of the parties." Hearst Commc'ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 503, 115 P.3d 262 (2005). We give words "their ordinary, usual, and popular meaning unless the entirety of the agreement clearly demonstrates a contrary intent." Id. at 504. We interpret only what was written in the agreement, not what the...