Valkenburg v. Tadesse

1

MIKE VAN VALKENBURG a/k/a MICHAEL ALLEN VAN VALKENBURG, Respondent, v. MESHESHA TADESSE, individually and on behalf of his marital community, Appellant.

YET OIL AND BRAKE SERVICES LLC, a Washington limited liability company; LEO.RAH LLC d/b/a SASHA'S BIKINI ESPRESSO, a Washington limited liability company; and ANY OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2006 RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH, SEATTLE, WA 98144, Defendants.

No. 85281-7-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

April 22, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Birk J.

Meshesha Tadesse appeals a judgment against him that found him in unlawful detainer of a commercial property owned by Michael Van Valkenburg and liable for unpaid obligations under the parties' lease agreement. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact, which in turn support the trial court's conclusions of law. We affirm and award reasonable attorney fees and costs to Van Valkenburg pursuant to the lease's attorney fees provision.

I^[1]

Van Valkenburg owns seven to nine properties and has been leasing them out for 35 years. One of these properties is the commercial property at issue in this case, which is located in Seattle. In January 2020, Budget Batteries Inc., the previous tenant, contacted Van Valkenburg to have Tadesse take over the lease to the property. Van Valkenburg drafted a lease agreement and sent it to Tadesse, who expressed interest in eventually converting the property from a service station into a coffee shop. The lease was for a term of three years beginning on January 1, 2020. Absent Van Valkenburg's written consent, the premises could be used only for the business of a coffee shop and brake and oil repair shop. Under the terms of the agreement, Van Valkenburg was required to maintain the structure of the building, roof common areas, and parking lot in good condition. Tadesse was required to pay $3,000.00 per month for rent, pay 100 percent of all taxes levied against the property, and reimburse Van Valkenburg for insurance premiums on the property. The agreement prohibited Tadesse from subleasing any part of the property without Van Valkenburg's written consent. Under an option to renew clause, Tadesse was entitled to a three year option to renew the lease only if he was current on his obligations under the lease. The agreement contains an attorney fee provision, which states, "If legal notices suit or action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs reasonable attorney fees." Van Valkenburg and Tadesse both signed, but did not separately include dates next to their signatures, and a notary public notarized, signed, and dated the agreement on February 1, 2020.

According to a "Statement of Account" prepared by Van Valkenburg's counsel, Tadesse fairly consistently met his rent obligations only in 2021, paid the annual insurance premium only one out of three times, and missed all three annual property tax payments. Despite this history of missed payments, Van Valkenburg agreed to renew Tadesse's lease starting December 2022, increasing the rent to $3,500.00 per month.

Tadesse subleased part of the property at some point to a former barista in his coffee shop and collected $2,700.00 in monthly rent from her, but never remitted any portion of those payments to Van Valkenburg. On February 8, 2023, Van Valkenburg gave notice to Tadesse, LEO.RAH LLC doing business as "Sasha's Bikini Espresso," and all other occupants of the property that they were in default of rent and other payment obligations totaling $36,135.38. The notice told the occupants to pay the total amount in default or surrender the premises within three days after service of the notice.

On February 23, 2023, Van Valkenburg filed a complaint against Tadesse, YET Oil and Brake Services LLC, and Sasha's Bikini Espresso, alleging unlawful detainer and breach of contract. Tadesse filed his answer, a motion to dismiss Van Valkenburg's complaint, and a supporting affidavit, where he advanced a forgery counterclaim based on the copy of the lease agreement Van Valkenburg submitted and requested an award of $50,000.00. Tadesse further alleged he had incurred expenses to repair the premises and install new equipment, he struggled to pay rent as a result of COVID-19, and Van Valkenburg's motivation for seeking his eviction was to sell the property at a profit. Trial commenced on April 17, 2023 and lasted one day. Van Valkenburg, Tadesse, and Tadesse's expert witness James Green testified.

Van Valkenburg denied being told about a leak in the roof and stated Tadesse had told him that the roof was fixed. Van Valkenburg testified that in December 2022 or early January 2023, Tadesse said he owed him $8,400.00 for roof work, but Van Valkenburg never received any pictures of the work, information on who did the work, or a receipt from a licensed contractor that the work was completed. Van Valkenburg testified he learned Tadesse subleased the property only after the sublessee reached out to him about a power problem on the property. This was also the first time Van Valkenburg learned about a power issue on the property. Van Valkenburg had not given Tadesse permission to sublease the property.

On April 19, 2023, the trial court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final judgment. The trial court found Tadesse was in unlawful detainer of the property, awarded a principal judgment of $32,135.38 to Van Valkenburg, dismissed Tadesse's counterclaim with prejudice, and awarded attorney fees and costs to Van Valkenburg. Tadesse appeals.

II

We review a trial court's findings of fact in an unlawful detainer action for substantial evidence. Tedford v. Guy, 13 Wn.App. 2d 1, 12, 462 P.3d 869 (2020). We begin with a presumption in favor of the trial court's findings and the appellant has the burden of showing that a finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence. Lang Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wn.App. 816, 825, 351 P.3d 214 (2015). Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded, rational person that a finding is true. Spencer v. Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC, 6 Wn.App. 2d 762, 794-95, 432 P.3d 821 (2018). Where evidence conflicts, we need only determine" 'whether the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party supports the challenged findings.'" State v. Living Essentials, LLC, 8 Wn.App. 2d 1, 14, 436 P.3d 857 (2019) (quoting Prostov v. Dept. of Licensing, 186 Wn.App. 795, 820, 349 P.3d 874 (2015)). We will not reweigh the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses on appeal. Id. at 15. After reviewing the findings of fact, we then decide whether those findings support the trial court's conclusions of law. Tiller v. Lackey, 6 Wn.App. 2d 470, 484, 431 P.3d 524 (2018). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Tedford, 13 Wn.App. 2d at 12. Unchallenged findings of fact are accepted as true on appeal. Id. Unchallenged conclusions of law become the law of the case. The-Anh Nguyen v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn.App. 155, 163, 317 P.3d 518 (2014).

A

Although not directly challenged by Van Valkenburg, we first address Tadesse's failure to specify the findings of fact he challenges in his opening brief.

RAP 10.3(g) requires a separate assignment of error for each challenged finding of fact with reference to the finding by number. The rules of appellate procedure are to "be liberally interpreted to promote justice and facilitate the decision of cases on the merits. Cases and issues will not be determined on the basis of compliance or noncompliance with these rules except in compelling circumstances where justice demands." RAP 1.2(a). We wield discretion to consider cases and issues on the merits under RAP 1.2. State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 323, 893 P.2d 629 (1995). This discretion should be exercised unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. Id. Where the nature of the appeal is clear and the relevant issues are argued, citations provided, and the respondent is not prejudiced, there is no compelling reason for an appellate court to not consider the merits of the case or issue. Id.

Tadesse's opening brief failed to comply with RAP 10.3 because Tadesse did not identify the specific findings of fact he is challenging. Courts hold pro se litigants to the same standards as attorneys. In re Vulnerable Adult Pet. for Winter, 12 Wn.App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020). But the issues Tadesse raised were sufficiently clear for Van Valkenburg to discern and answer. This is evinced by the fact that Van Valkenburg explicitly outlines in his brief the findings and conclusions he believes Tadesse is challenging and addresses them accordingly.

We exercise our discretion and consider the assignments of error that are properly before us. We set forth the specific findings of fact we deem sufficiently challenged below. The remaining findings of fact are accepted as true.

B

Tadesse challenges finding of fact 2, which states,

On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Van Valkenburg and Meshesha Tadesse executed an agreement for the lease of the Property from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (the "Lease").

The lease agreement states the lease begins on January 24, 2020 and both Van Valkenburg and Tadesse signed the agreement. Although neither Van Valkenburg or Tadesse separately affixed dates to those signatures, the trial court was entitled to believe that the date listed at the top of the lease agreement was the date of its execution. The date listed on the lease agreement and Van Valkenburg's testimony about the December 2022 lease renewal supports a three year lease term from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022. Tadesse made payments for rent and one...