Chabuk v. Miller
Decision Date | 07 July 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 52917-3-II,52917-3-II |
Parties | AHMET CHABUK, Appellant, v. FRANCES MILLER, AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Respondents. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
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.
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:
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 ( 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.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial