Sherwood Auburn LLC v. Pinzon

521 P.3d 212

SHERWOOD AUBURN LLC, Respondent,

v.Joel PINZON and Rosa Mendez, Appellants.

No. 84119-0-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

Filed December 5, 2022

Edmund Robert Witter, Attorney at Law, Yuan Ting, Rolando Cardona-Roman, Kaitlin Rachel Heinen, King County Bar Association, 1200 5th Ave. Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98101-1116, Dashiell George Degraff, Housing Justice Project, 1200 5th Ave. Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98101-1116, for Appellants.

Thomas Martin Morningstar, Puckett & Redford PLLC, 901 5th Ave. Ste. 800, Seattle, WA, 98164-2048, Andrew Peterson Mazzeo, Harbor Appeals and Law, PLLC, 2401 Bristol Ct. Sw. Ste. C102, Olympia, WA, 98502-6037, for the Respondent.

Joseph Robert Shaeffer, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1745, Amici Curiae on behalf of National Housing Law Project, Mobilization for Justice, Kathryn A. Sabbeth.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Dwyer, J.

¶1 When a landlord has accepted the financial benefits of certain federal programs, Congress is authorized pursuant to the Constitution's Spending Clause¹ to impose on that landlord rules, regulations, or restrictions premised on the landlord's participation in such a program. The Supremacy Clause² of the Constitution makes such laws paramount to those enacted by state legislatures. In the federal CARES Act,³ Congress mandated that landlords who have accepted certain federal financial benefits must provide to tenants living in covered housing units a 30-day notice to cure the rental payment deficiency or vacate the premises before the landlord may commence an eviction action.

¶2 Here, the notice provided to tenants Joel Pinzon and Rosa Mendez by landlord Sherwood Auburn LLC, did not comply with the federal CARES Act. The landlord nevertheless filed an unlawful detainer action against the tenants. Because Sherwood Auburn did not comply with the CARES Act notice requirement, the superior court was without the authority to issue a writ of restitution or enter judgment against Pinzon and Mendez. Accordingly, we reverse the superior court's order so doing.

I

¶3 Pinzon and Mendez began renting an apartment owned by Sherwood Auburn in May 2019. They lived in the apartment with their four young children. Pinzon has worked in construction his whole life. During the COVID-19 pandemic, his workplace closed and he was unable to find work. Pinzon and Mendez fell behind on their rent.

On December 21, 2021, Sherwood Auburn served on Pinzon and Mendez a "14-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Vacate the Premises." The notice provided:

You must pay the total amount due to your landlord within fourteen (14) days after service of this notice or you must vacate the premises. Any payment you make to the landlord must first be applied to the total amount due as shown on this notice. Any failure to comply with this notice within fourteen (14) days after service of this notice may result in a judicial proceeding that leads to your eviction from the premises.

(Emphasis added.) On the same day, Sherwood Auburn, an entity with a federally backed mortgage loan, served the tenants with a document entitled "30-DAY NOTICE (CARES Act)." The document stated:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the obligations of the CARES Act as passed by the United States Congress, that the Landlord has served a notice to vacate, or a notice to comply or vacate on you pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, and in accordance with the requirements of emergency orders promulgated by Governor Jay Inslee, and that if a court so orders in any unlawful detainer action, you may be required to vacate the residential unit in not less than 30 days from the date of this notice.

(Emphasis added.)

¶4 On February 12, 2022, Sherwood Auburn served Pinzon and Mendez with an eviction summons and complaint for unlawful detainer. The landlord thereafter filed in the superior court a complaint for unlawful detainer and order to show cause. Pinzon and Mendez were ordered to appear at a hearing before the court on March 10, 2022, to show cause why the court should not issue a writ of restitution restoring to Sherwood Auburn possession of the apartment and enter judgment against the tenants.

¶5 Following the show cause hearing, a superior court commissioner issued a writ of restitution and entered judgment against Pinzon and Mendez. At the hearing, the commissioner "acknowledge[d] that the requirements of the federal law and the state law being different, certainly could be confusing," but determined that Mendez had not found the two notices to be confusing, "because he still hasn't vacated the premises." The commissioner thus found that, in issuing the two notices, Sherwood Auburn was "in compliance with the state statute and the federal statute."

¶6 Pinzon and Mendez thereafter filed a motion to revise the commissioner's order. On May 6, 2022, a superior court judge denied the motion, thus adopting the ruling of the commissioner. Pinzon and Mendez appeal.

II

¶7 Pinzon and Mendez assert that, pursuant to the federal CARES Act, Sherwood Auburn was required to provide a 30-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises prior to commencing an unlawful detainer action. Indeed, the plain language of the CARES Act mandates that a landlord that has received certain federal financial benefits must provide such a notice to tenants residing in housing units covered by the Act. Sherwood Auburn nevertheless contends that the CARES Act simply precludes state trial courts from enforcing eviction actions on a timeline not in keeping with the CARES Act requirements. This interpretation is both contrary to the statute's plain language and inconsistent with the authority pursuant to which Congress enacted the statute. Accordingly, we agree with Pinzon and Mendez and hold that, pursuant to the CARES Act, Sherwood Auburn was required to provide a clear 30-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises.

A

¶8 When a superior court rules on a motion for revision, "the appeal is from the superior court's decision, not the commissioner's." State v. Ramer, 151 Wash.2d 106, 113, 86 P.3d 132 (2004). Accordingly, we review the ruling of the superior court, not the ruling of the commissioner. Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wash.2d 308, 313 n.2, 386 P.3d 711 (2016). " ‘Under RCW 2.24.050, the findings and orders of a court commissioner not successfully revised become the orders and findings of the superior court.’ " In re Det. of L.K., 14 Wash. App. 2d 542, 550, 471 P.3d 975 (2020) (quoting Maldonado v. Maldonado, 197 Wash. App. 779, 789, 391 P.3d 546 (2017) ).

¶9 "The meaning of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo."

Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). In interpreting a federal statute, our objective is to ascertain Congress's intent. Kitsap County Consol. Hous. Auth. v. Henry-Levingston, 196 Wash. App. 688, 701, 385 P.3d 188 (2016). "[I]f the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then [we] must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent." Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d at 9-10, 43 P.3d 4.

B

¶10 Washington's Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA), chapter 59.18 RCW, provides that a landlord may commence an unlawful detainer action if a tenant breaches a rental agreement by failing to make timely rental payments. RCW 59.18.130, .180(2). See Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wash.2d 365, 370, 173 P.3d 228 (2007). "An unlawful detainer action is a statutorily created proceeding that provides an expedited method of resolving the right to possession of property." Christensen, 162 Wash.2d at 370-71, 173 P.3d 228. In so doing, it "relieves a landlord of having to file an expensive and lengthy common law action of ejectment." FPA Crescent Assocs. v. Jamie's LLC, 190 Wash. App. 666, 675, 360 P.3d 934 (2015). "However, in order to take advantage of [the unlawful detainer statute's] favorable provisions, a landlord must comply with the requirements of the statute." Hous. Auth. of City of Everett v. Terry, 114 Wash.2d 558, 563-64, 789 P.2d 745 (1990).

¶11 In residential tenancies, a tenant is liable for unlawful detainer "[w]hen he or she continues in possession ... after a default in the payment of rent, and after notice in writing requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the detained premises ... [and the request] has remained uncomplied with ... for the period of 14 days after service." RCW 59.12.030(3) ; see also RCW 59.18.650(2)(a). Thus, pursuant to Washington law, both notice of the tenant's default and the expiration of the requisite period to cure are required before a tenant can be in the status of unlawful detainer. RCW 59.12.030(3). "The purpose of the notice is to provide the tenant with ‘at least one opportunity to correct a breach before forfeiture of a lease under the accelerated restitution provisions of RCW 59.12.’ " Christensen, 162 Wash.2d at 371, 173 P.3d 228 (quoting Terry, 114 Wash.2d at 569, 789 P.2d 745 ). Such "notice must ... be sufficiently particular and certain so as not to deceive or mislead." IBC, LLC v. Heuft, 141 Wash. App. 624, 632, 174 P.3d 95 (2007).

¶12 The federal CARES Act, enacted by Congress in response to the economic disruption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, provides protections for tenants living in housing units owned by landlords that have received the financial benefits of certain federal programs. 15 U.S.C. § 9058. The statute applies to tenants living in any "covered dwelling," which includes housing units on properties with "[f]ederally backed mortgage loan[s]." 15 U.S.C. § 9058(a)(1), (2)(B)(i). In addition to imposing a 120-day moratorium on eviction actions for nonpayment of rent or other charges, 15 U.S.C. § 9058(b), the CARES Act established a 30-day notice requirement, which provides that "[t]he lessor of a covered dwelling unit ... 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...