Landes v. Cuzdey
| Decision Date | 20 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | 51841-4-II |
| Citation | 10 Wn.App.2d 1002 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PATRICIA LANDES, Respondent, v. PATRICK CUZDEY, and ANY OTHER RESIDENTS, Appellant. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Patrick Cuzdey appeals the trial court's order in Patricia Landes's unlawful detainer action directing issuance of a writ of restitution, granting judgment to Landes for past due rent, and awarding attorney fees to Landes. An unlawful detainer action is available against a "tenant of real property for a term less than life." RCW 59.12.030. The issue here is whether Cuzdey was Landes's "tenant," thereby making the unlawful detainer statute applicable.
We hold that the trial court erred in granting the writ of restitution and final judgment in this unlawful detainer action because Cuzdey presented issues of fact requiring trial regarding (1) whether an enforceable rental agreement was formed between the parties that created a tenancy under the unlawful detainer statute, and (2) whether Landes's waiver and equitable estoppel theories applied. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply Landes's judicial estoppel theory. Accordingly, we reverse the writ of restitution and the final judgment in favor of Landes for unpaid rent and attorney fees, and we remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
In 1983, Landes and her husband (now deceased) purchased a five-acre parcel of undeveloped property southwest of Olympia. Their daughter Karla[1] and her then husband Cuzdey moved into a mobile home on the property in 1984.
In 1985, the Landeses purchased a newer mobile home for the Cuzdeys to live in. The Cuzdeys repaid the Landeses for the cost of the mobile home by making monthly payments until the amount was paid off in 2005. The Cuzdeys apparently never made rent payments to the Landeses for either the mobile home or the property on which it was located.
In May 2014, Karla and Cuzdey dissolved their marriage. Karla moved off the property, but Cuzdey continued to reside in the mobile home.
In June 2014, Landes served Cuzdey with a 20-day notice to terminate tenancy of the mobile home and the real property. In response, Cuzdey filed an action to quiet title to the property. Cuzdey alleged that pursuant to a 1984 oral agreement, the Landeses had agreed to sell the property to him and Karla, and that the purchase price had been paid off with cash and work Cuzdey had performed on the property. Cuzdey later added a claim to quiet title to the mobile home which he claimed was included in the sale of the property.
In August 2015, the trial court dismissed Cuzdey's claims on summary judgment. The court also found that Cuzdey's claim was frivolous and awarded Landes $36, 000 in attorney fees under RCW 4.84.185. In addition, the court issued an order staying the dismissal of Cuzdey's quiet title claims for 60 days if Cuzdey filed an appeal and also paid into the court's registry a $36, 000 bond and rent for two months at $1, 500 per month.
Cuzdey filed a notice of appeal. He did not post bond at that time or make a rental payment into the court's registry for either August or September. The stay expired on October 6.
On October 14, Landes filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. On November 13, the trial court entered an agreed order dismissing the unlawful detainer action if Cuzdey scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of security or bond required to stay the judgment in the quiet title action pending appeal. The hearing was to take place no later than December 11, or else Landes was free to obtain a new show cause hearing date on the unlawful detainer action.
On November 16, Landes served Cuzdey with a "Notice to Begin Rental Pursuant to Chapter 59.18 RCW." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 23-24. The notice read
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the terms of your non-exclusive possession and occupancy of [the property's address] are hereby changed as of and after January 1, 2016, as follows:
CP at 23. Cuzdey did not respond to this notice at that time.
The next day, Cuzdey set a hearing for his motion for stay or alternative security in the quiet title matter while it was pending on appeal. A hearing on Cuzdey's motion occurred on December 11. Cuzdey argued that the quiet title judgment should be stayed without bond because his only assets were personal property and that selling the personal property to raise money for the bond would take too long to effect a stay of the judgment.
The trial court asked the parties whether the unlawful detainer action Landes had filed would move forward if Cuzdey was unable to post a bond in the amount the court set. Landes's attorney replied that it would. The court then asked how long Cuzdey would have to remove his personal property if Landes prevailed in the unlawful detainer action. Landes's attorney responded that "because we served upon him a notice to [begin] rental, you've got to put this under the Landlord Tenant Act and . . . it's 45 days." CP at 410.
The court asked Cuzdey's attorney to answer the same questions. Cuzdey's attorney responded, "I would agree that this would fall under the Landlord Tenant Act," and he stated that Cuzdey would have roughly 45 days to remove his personal property if Landes prevailed in the unlawful detainer action. CP at 411. The court ended the discussion by stating, "Well, okay, I'm not ruling on the landlord tenant matter but I thank you for that clarification." CP at 411.
The trial court ordered that the judgment against Cuzdey would be stayed on the condition that he posted a supersedeas bond or cash in the amount of $75, 000 on or before January 11, 2016.
By January 11, Cuzdey had not posted the bond. Landes apparently sent Cuzdey a "3 day pay or vacate notice." CP at 42.
On January 19, Cuzdey wrote to Landes, attaching "a money order satisfying your demand for rent in the amount of $1 500.00 payable to Patricia Landes." CP at 42. Cuzdey further informed Landes that he had "appealed the judgment quieting title and [did] not admit to being a tenant of Landes." CP at 42. Cuzdey stated that he was "paying under protest and under order of the superior court," and that he "reserve[d] all of [his] rights, claims and arguments for purposes of the appeal and remand of the case." CP at 42. Finally, Cuzdey reserved the right to seek reimbursement of the payment if he prevailed on appeal.
In February, Cuzdey sent Landes a second money order for $1 500. The memo line of the money order read" 'RENT' FOR FEB 2016." CP at 27.
In March, the trial court granted Cuzdey a stay of enforcement of the quiet title action after he posted a supersedeas bond. Cuzdey stopped making $1, 500 monthly payments to Landes, but he continued living in the mobile home on the property.
In April 2017, Division One of this court affirmed the dismissal of Cuzdey's claim to the real property, but reversed the trial court's dismissal of his quiet title claim to the mobile home because there was a genuine issue of fact regarding title.[2] Cuzdey v. Landes, No. 75632-0-I, slip op. at 1-2, 12 (Wash.Ct.App. Apr. 3, 2017) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/ pdf/756320.pdf. The court also reversed the trial court's attorney fee award.
In October 2017, Landes sent Cuzdey another 3-day notice to pay or vacate, asserting that rent from January 2016 through October 2017 at $1, 500 per month still was owing. Cuzdey remained on the property in the mobile home.
In November 2017, Landes filed a new unlawful detainer action against Cuzdey based on his failure to pay rent. Landes also filed a motion for an order to show cause why a writ of restitution and final judgment should not be entered in her favor. The trial court granted the motion and scheduled a show cause hearing.
At the hearing, Landes argued that the parties had an enforceable rental agreement under the terms of her November 2015 Notice to Begin Rental. Cuzdey argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to remove him from the property through an unlawful detainer action because he was a tenant at will, and that no enforceable rental agreement had been formed between the parties.
The trial court orally ruled that Cuzdey's remaining on the property and payment of rent for two months formed a rental agreement between the parties. The court entered the following findings of fact:
CP at 163.
The court entered judgment for Landes in the amount of $43, 331, representing $34, 500 in back rent, attorney fees of $8, 324, and $597 in costs. The court also issued a writ of restitution restoring the property to Landes.
Cuzdey filed a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial