Chabuk v. Miller

Decision Date07 July 2021
Docket NumberNo. 52917-3-II,52917-3-II
PartiesAHMET CHABUK, Appellant, v. FRANCES MILLER, AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Respondents.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, J. — Attorney Ahmet Chabuk is a landlord for his client, Frances Miller. Chabuk and Miller had a personal relationship, which Miller alleges was romantic and sexual in nature. During this relationship, Chabuk purchased a home for Miller to live in. Several years after Miller moved into the home, Chabuk and Miller entered into a written lease agreement to comply with public housing assistance requirements. Miller never paid rent to Chabuk; Chabuk only collected rental assistance checks directly from the housing authority. At some point, Chabuk and Miller's personal relationship ended. Soon after, Miller's housing assistance benefits decreased, and Chabuk served Miller with a 3-day notice to pay rent or vacate. Miller neither paid rent nor vacated the premises.

Chabuk sued Miller for unlawful detainer. The case proceeded to a trial, after which the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruling that Miller was not guilty of unlawful detainer and that Miller was entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Accordingly, the trial court entered a judgment against Chabuk. The trial court subsequently denied Chabuk's motion for reconsideration.

Chabuk appeals the trial court's pre-trial orders; the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order; the judgment for attorney fees; and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We hold that the trial court erred when it entered one conclusion, but that this conclusion was superfluous. We hold that the trial court did not otherwise err when it entered the pre-trial orders; the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order; the judgment, or the order denying Chabuk's motion for reconsideration. Thus, we affirm.

FACTS

Attorney Ahmet Chabuk represented Frances Miller for several years, beginning in 2002. Chabuk represented Miller on many matters, including disability claims and landlord tenant law issues. Miller contends that during the time Chabuk represented her, she and Chabuk formed a romantic and sexual relationship. Chabuk denies this.

In 2007, Miller and her family needed housing. They found a house they liked in Bremerton and convinced Chabuk, who had owned several investment properties, to purchase the house so they could live there. That summer, Chabuk purchased the Bremerton home. Miller contends she and Chabuk mutually understood that the Bremerton house would serve as permanent housing for Miller. In early 2008, the Miller family moved in without a written lease. Chabuk alleges Miller and her family paid rent between 2008 and 2016, but there is no evidence in the record on appeal corroborating this claim.

In April 2009, Miller qualified for public housing assistance through the Bremerton Housing Authority (BHA) in the amount of $650 per month. Miller and Chabuk entered into awritten rental agreement dated April 1, 2010. The purpose of signing this lease was to obtain Section 8 housing assistance from the BHA. The agreement provided a term of six months with rent due the first of each month in the amount of $1250. Under the agreement, Miller was to be responsible for all services and utilities. The agreement also provided, in relevant part, as follows:

At the end of the term of this lease, the lease shall be deemed automatically renewed for one month under the same conditions and terms thereafter from month to month unless either party notifies the other, in writing, of his/her intentions to vacate, at least twenty (20) days prior to vacating. . . .
. . .
It is further agreed that no waiver of any breach of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein shall operate as a waiver of the covenant, condition, or agreement itself.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 7-9.

Throughout the agreement, the terms "vacate" and "terminate" are used distinctively. "Vacate" is used with respect to the tenant's surrendering possession or occupancy of the property, while "terminate" describes the landlord's ability to end the lease. The "time is of the essence" provision is exemplary of this distinction:

Time is the essence of this agreement in all respects, and if the tenant shall fail to make foregoing payments or any of them on time . . . or shall vacate the premisses [sic], each or any of the foregoing acts (among others) shall constitute violation of this agreement; in which case the landlord or his agent hereby has the right to terminate the lease and thereby repossess the premisses [sic] without let or hindrance.

CP at 8.

The lease purports to incorporate a housing assistance contract by addendum, but no such addendum appears in the record on appeal. Chabuk contends that after the lease was signed,Miller paid rent in addition to the rental assistance provided from BHA, but no evidence corroborates this claim.1 Rental assistance payments from the BHA were deposited directly into Chabuk's bank account. Sometime in 2015, Chabuk and Miller's relationship ended.

In February 2018, the BHA reduced Miller's rental assistance benefit.2 Chabuk contends that on March 8, 2018, he delivered to Miller a 3-day notice to pay rent or vacate premises.

On April 18, Chabuk filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Miller. In the complaint, Chabuk alleges that monthly rent was $1250, and that Miller had failed to pay $650 for March 2018 in violation of the terms of the rental agreement.

Miller drafted a handwritten, pro se response to the complaint. That response alleged that Miller and Chabuk had a romantic, extramarital sexual relationship for over a decade, and that Chabuk bought the house for Miller to live in permanently as part of their ongoing relationship. Chabuk redacted most of Miller's response, and then filed the redacted document with the trial court. Miller later obtained counsel who filed a formal answer and later offered an unredacted copy of her response as an exhibit at trial. In addition to describing the relationship between Miller and Chabuk, Miller's response and answer denied the existence of any obligation to pay rent, and asserted defenses of duress, misrepresentation of the agreement, and CR 11.

On May 11, the trial court held a show cause hearing. The trial court ruled that there was an issue of fact as to whether the matter should proceed as an unlawful detainer under theresidential landlord tenant act (RCW 59.18) or as an ejectment (RCW 7.28), because Miller denied that her possession of the property was based on any written agreement. The trial court set a trial date. Chabuk moved for reconsideration of the trial court's ruling, which was denied.

Miller sent Chabuk requests for discovery. On June 8, Chabuk moved for a protective order to quash Miller's discovery requests, arguing that the matter was an unlawful detainer action, that the civil rules did not apply, and that he should be awarded attorney fees. The trial court denied Chabuk's motion, set a due date for discovery production, and awarded attorney fees for Miller. Chabuk responded to Miller's discovery on June 28.

The case proceeded to trial on July 13. The trial court heard testimony from Miller and Chabuk concerning the basis of Miller's possession of the property.3 The trial court found that Miller's account of their housing arrangement was more credible than Chabuk's. The trial court ruled that Miller was not guilty of unlawful detainer because she was not in violation of any covenants under a lease. The trial court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pertinent to this appeal, the court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

I. Findings of Fact
. . .
3. The house was purchased by Chabuk with the intent of providing a place for Miller to reside. Miller's testimony as to the intent of the parties to provide a permanent residence for her at the time of the initial occupancy was more credible than Chabuk's, especially given the lack of compliance with requirements of the RLTA.4
. . .
5. Chabuk and Miller both signed a lease agreement on or about April 1, 2010.. . .
8. The purpose of signing the lease was to continue to obtain Section 8 housing assistance from the BHA. . . .
9. The lease provided in evidence did not contain the addendum required as part of any Section 8 housing contract.
10. The amount charged in the lease exceeded the reasonable rental amount for a 2-bedroom house posted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the relevant period.
11. No documentation was provided of Chabuk complying with the requirements of HUD and BHA for Section 8 housing, including:
a. Complying with the HUD approved rental limits for Bremerton.
b. Obtaining HUD approval on the payment of utilities.
c. Attaching the appropriate HUD documents to the rental contract.
12. No evidence was provided of Chabuk complying with required actions by a landlord under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA) RCW 59.18 et seq., such as:
a. Receipts for payments of security deposit or rent.
b. List of conditions of premises.
c. Maintaining a separate bank account for deposit,
d. Reporting income to the IRS.
13. Chabuk is a licensed practicing attorney as well as the owner of multiple residential properties.
14. Prior to entry into the lease agreement Chabuk assumed responsibility as Miller's attorney on a number of matters, including prior landlord-tenant matters and an ERISA claim.
15. Chabuk and Miller had a close, personal relationship which developed subsequent to Chabuk's representation of Miller, but prior to execution of the lease. Miller's testimony that the relationship was romantic and sexual in nature is more credible than Chabuk's denial of the same, especially given the degree of personal knowledge of Miller shown by Chabuk.
16. Chabuk had extensive intimate personal knowledge of Miller and her family and circumstances, obtained during this representation of her, which he made use
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT