Scott E. Feir

Understanding the Eviction Action (and Doing it Right)

II. The Scope of the Unlawful Detainer Action

The scope of the unlawful detainer action is limited because the court only has jurisdiction to decide who is entitled to possession and certain other issues associated with possession. Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711 P.2d 295 (1985) (“The [unlawful detainer] action is a narrow one, limited to the question of possession and related issues such as restitution of the premises and rent.”). The statutory remedies generally available to a landlord if the tenant is found to be in unlawful detainer include issuance of a writ of restitution, recovery of any past rent due and/or “rental” damages, and an award of double the amount of any default in rent during the period of unlawful detainer. RCW 59.12.090; RCW 59.12.170.

The court’s unlawful detainer jurisdiction, however, may be invoked only under certain enumerated statutory situations. Situations which give rise to the court’s unlawful detainer jurisdiction are enumerated in RCW 59.12.030. Failure to base an unlawful detainer on grounds specified in RCW 59.12.030 will likely result in the action being dismissed. See, e.g., State, ex relatio Seaborn, v. Superior Court of Pierce County, 102 Wash. 215, 216, 172 P. 826 (1918) (“The action of unlawful detainer or forcible entry and detainer is a special statutory summary proceeding in derogation of the common law, and to confer jurisdiction upon the court each step provided by the statute must be strictly complied with.”)¹. Where an action does not fit the situations listed in RCW 59.12.030, e.g., a tenancy at will, an ejectment action must be brought². Legal possession must also be at issue. See Pine Corp. v. Richardson, 12 Wn. App. 459, 464 (1975).

a. RCW 59.12.030 – Statutory Basis for Unlawful Detainer Action.

RCW 59.12.030 describes seven primary situations upon which to base an unlawful detainer action. The first situation is holding over after the expiration of a fixed term lease, which has no notice period. RCW 59.12.030(1). The second situation is holding over a monthly or other periodic tenancy after expiration of a 20-day notice terminating the tenancy. RCW 59.12.030(2). The third situation is the failure to pay rent or surrender the premises after a three-day notice. RCW 59.12.030(3). The fourth situation is the failure to cease or correct a breach of a covenant or lease provision (other than rent default), or in the alternative, surrender the premises, after service of a ten-day notice. RCW 59.12.030(4). The fifth situation is committing nuisance or permitting waste³. RCW 59.12.030(5). The sixth situation is unlawful entry by a trespasser. The law requires the trespasser be given three days notice to vacate. RCW 59.12.030(6). The seventh situation is allowing gang-related criminal activity and applies primarily to residential tenancies. For the court to gain jurisdiction, at least one of these situations must be present, and the statutory notice requirements (described elsewhere in these materials) must be met.

It is important to remember that most commercial (and many residential) leases contain specific provisions modifying (extending) the statutory notice/compliance periods set forth in RCW 59.12.030. The tenant will be afforded the greater protection of the UDA or the lease. See, e.g., Community Investments, Ltd., v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 36 Wn. App. 34, 36, 671 P.2d 289 (1983) (landlord required to give tenant 20-day notice of default instead of statutory 10 days because a tenant may contract for a longer notice period than set forth in RCW 59.12).

¹In Seaborn, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the court below erred by issuing a prohibitory injunction and restraining order because those issues were outside the scope of the statutory grant of jurisdiction. 102 Wash. at 217.

²An unlawful detainer action is not applicable in the case of a tenancy at will. In Turner v. White, the court determined that an employer who allowed their employee to live in a trailer on the employer’s property could not utilize the unlawful detainer action to eject their employee. 20 Wn. App. 290, 292, 579 P.2d 410 (1978). The court stated simply that the statutory remedy did not apply because a tenancy at will “was not one within the six sections of RCW 59.12.030.” Id. Under such circumstances, the employer should have commenced an ejectment action. RCW 59.04.040.

See also Puget Sound Inv. Group, Inc., v. Bridges, 92 Wn. App. 523, 526, 963 P.2d 944 (1998) (purchaser of real property at a federal income tax foreclosure sale lacks authority to bring an unlawful detainer action).

³A waste claim may be brought under an unlawful detainer action, regardless of whether the defendant caused or simply permitted waste, either under RCW 59.12.030(5) or as a breach of a lease provision, if such provision exists. Thisius v. Sealander, 26 Wn.2d 810, 811, 175 P.2d 619 (1946). If a tenant has caused and not just permitted extensive damage through waste to the landlord’s property, the landlord has an alternate cause of action under Washington’s waste statute. Graffell v. Honeysuckle, 30 Wn.2d 390, 396-8, 191 P.2d 858 (1948) (waste is defined as “unreasonable or improper use, abuse, mismanagement, or omission of duty touching real estate by one rightfully in possession which results in its substantial injury”). This may be preferable to some plaintiffs because the waste statute provides for treble damages. Id.; RCW 64.12.020.

Page 2