Krull v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 12 January 2016
• Docket Number: 47188-4-II
• Citation: Krull v. Lawson, 47188-4-II (Wash. App. Jan 12, 2016)
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: DANIEL KRULL and MAUREEN KRULL, Respondents, v. AIKO LAWSON, Appellant.

DANIEL KRULL and MAUREEN KRULL, Respondents, v. AIKO LAWSON, Appellant.

No. 47188-4-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

January 12, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Melnick, J.

Aiko Lawson appeals the writ of restitution and judgment awarded against her in this unlawful detainer action filed by her landlords, Daniel and Maureen Krull. She argues that the improper service of the unlawful detainer notice and eviction summons deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, that the underlying lease addendum was the result of coercion and duress, and that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that she defaulted in paying rent. Because service of both the notice and summons complied with the statutory requirements, and because substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that the lease addendum was not the result of coercion and duress and that Lawson was not current in paying her rent, we affirm and grant the Krulls' request for attorney fees on appeal.

FACTS

Lawson and the Krulls entered into a one-year residential lease that started April 15, 2014. Under the lease, Lawson's rent of $1, 250 was due before the 10th day of each month. The Krulls' mortgage payment on the residence was due by the 15th of each month. Lawson made an initial rent payment when she signed the lease, but she was late with the next payment in May. In response, the Krulls renegotiated the terms of the lease with Lawson to make her rent due on the first day of the month. Lawson signed the lease addendum on May 30, and Daniel Krull signed it on June 2. Both signatures were notarized.

When Lawson failed to pay rent on December 1, the Krulls issued a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate. The Krulls completed service of this notice on December 4 by posting a copy of the notice at the residence and mailing it there. The Krulls also served Lawson with a 10-day notice to comply with the lease regarding payment of overdue late fees and the removal of dogs that violated the lease terms.

After Lawson failed to pay the December rent or vacate the property, the Krulls filed a complaint for unlawful detainer on December 9. This complaint, along with the eviction summons, payment statement, motion and declaration for order to show cause, and the order to show cause, was served on a young man at the Lawson residence who identified himself as "Sam" and claimed to be Lawson's roommate. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 53.

In a written response to the complaint, Lawson asserted that she did not owe rent for December and January because the Krulls had changed the lease terms improperly. She also attached illegible bank statements to an addendum explaining that she was current in her rental payments under the terms of the original lease.

At the show cause hearing, Lawson contended that she signed the lease addendum under duress and maintained that she was current in her rent under the terms of the original lease agreement. Lawson also complained that the summons was served on her son, who was a minor. Because of the factual disputes between the parties, the judge set the matter for trial.

At trial, Daniel Krull testified that Lawson began to fall behind in her rent in May 2014. Fearing that her late payment would result in a default on his mortgage, Krull rejected Lawson's suggestion that he apply her security deposit to the delinquent rent. Instead, he presented Lawson with the lease addendum that required rent payments by the first of the month, with a three-day grace period. Krull testified that Lawson struggled with subsequent rent payments until she failed to pay her December rent. He added that Lawson had paid $1, 395 in late fees over the course of her tenancy.

Lawson testified that because the Krulls had made her change the due date for her rental payments, she was going to be late with those payments every month. She asserted that if the addendum was rescinded and the late fees applied to her rental obligations, her rent would be current through February 10 2015. Lawson estimated that she had paid more than $2, 800 in late fees. She explained that she obtained a loan to pay the rental and late fees on May 30, the date she signed the addendum.

Lawson testified further that she had been coerced into signing the addendum changing the due date. To support her contention she introduced copies of text messages that she and Daniel Krull had exchanged. The trial court admitted the messages over the Krulls' authentication objection. Those messages show that Krull used profanity and threatened to evict Lawson, to render her homeless, and to blacklist her with area rental agencies if she did not vacate the premises or sign the addendum. In addition to her duress argument, Lawson contended that the addendum was invalid because her signature had not been notarized at the time of signing. During her cross-examination, Lawson admitted to being a party to previous eviction proceedings and to suing a different landlord the year before. She added that she wanted to remain in the Krull rental property until she could use her veteran's benefits to purchase her own home.

The trial court found that there was no duress sufficient to invalidate the lease addendum. The trial court also found that the Krulls had properly served the three-day notice as well as the eviction summons. The trial court granted the Krulls a judgment of $1, 250 that excluded their request for late fees and rental damages, and it awarded the Krulls attorney fees and costs of $1, 500. The trial court also granted the Krulls an immediate writ of restitution. Lawson appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. Service of Three-Day Notice and Eviction Summons

Lawson argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer proceedings because the Krulls failed to properly serve the three-day notice and the eviction summons.^[1] The trial court entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding service:

4. Notice. On December 4, 2014, a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Vacate was served on defendant in accordance with RCW 59.12.040. Defendant has failed to correct said default, has paid nothing to plaintiff subsequent to the service of said notice, are still in default, and / or have not vacated the premises.

7. Summons. On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, defendant(s) was (were) served with the statutory summons allowing an Immediate Writ of Restitution without bond and defendant(s) has filed a written response to the Complaint.

CP at 69-70.

We review a trial court's findings of fact for substantial evidence, which is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the finding. Harris v Urell, 133 Wn.App. 130, 137, 135 P.3d 530 (2006). If substantial evidence supports the findings of fact, we consider whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Harris, 133 Wn.App. at 137. We review conclusions of law and questions of law de novo. Cogdell v. 1999 O 'Ravez Family, LLC, 153 Wn.App. 384, 390, 220 P.3d 1259 (2009).

A. Service of Three-Day Notice

If a tenant breaches a rental agreement by failing to make timely rental payments, a landlord may commence an unlawful detainer action. Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 370, 173 P.3d 228 (2007). An unlawful detainer action is a statutorily created proceeding that provides an expedited route to resolve the possessory right in property. Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 370-71; Hous. Res. Grp. v. Price, 92 Wn.App. 394, 401, 958 P.2d 327 (1998).

The unlawful detainer statute authorizes a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises for a tenant's default in paying rent. Price, 92 Wn.App. at 401; RCW 59.12.030(3). The purpose of the three-day notice is to provide the tenant with "'at least one opportunity to correct a breach before forfeiture of a lease.'" Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 371 (quoting Hous. Auth. of Everett v. Terry, 114 Wn.2d 558, 569, 789 P.2d 745 (1990)).

A three-day notice to pay or vacate must be served in accordance with RCW 59.12.040. RCW 59.12.030(3); Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 371. Compliance with the method of process in RCW 59.12.040 is jurisdictional. Terry, 114 Wn.2d at 564. If the tenant is unavailable for personal service, service may be effectuated by '"affixing a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place on the premises unlawfully held'" and sending an additional '"copy through the mail addressed to the tenant... at the place where the premises unlawfully held are situated.'" Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 371 (quoting RCW 59.12.040(3)); Leda v. Whisnand, 150 Wn.App. 69, 85, 207P.3d468 (2009). Service by mail adds an additional day to the notice requirement; thus, a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer four days after the notice is properly posted and mailed.^[2] Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 371. Once a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer under RCW 59.12.030(3), a landlord may commence an unlawful detainer action by service and filing of the statutory summons and complaint. Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 371; RCW 59.12.070.

The Krulls served the three-day notice by posting a copy on the door of the rental property and by mailing a copy to its address. Lawson offered no testimony challenging Daniel Krull's testimony describing that service or his written declaration of service. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in concluding that service of the three-day notice complied with the statutory requirements.

B. Service of Summons

Proof that the defendant was properly served with a statutory unlawful detainer summons is another jurisdictional requirement. Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 372, 173 P.3d 228 (2007). The statute governing service states that "[t]he summons must be served and returned in the same manner as summons in other actions is served and returned." RCW...