Rental Hous. Ass'n v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 21 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 82469-4-I |
| Parties | RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION; Elena Bruk; Scott Dolfay; CJD Investments, LLC; Zella Apartments, LLC, Appellants, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Bradley S. Keller, John Arthur Tondini, Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, 1000 2nd Ave. Ste. 3800, Seattle, WA, 98104-1062, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Roger D. Wynne, Jeffrey S. Weber, Erica Franklin, Seattle City Attorney's Office, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 2050, Seattle, WA, 98104-7095, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Scott Crain, Joseph B. Jordan, Northwest Justice Project, 401 2nd Ave. S Ste. 407, Seattle, WA, 98104-3811, Niki J. Krimmel-Morrison, Attorney at Law, 124 4th Ave. S Ste. 240, Kent, WA, 98032-5874, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Northwest Justice Project.
Edmund Robert Witter, Attorney at Law, 1200 5th Ave. Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98101-1116, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of King County Bar Association.
PUBLISHED OPINION
¶1 In early 2020, the Seattle City Council passed three ordinances: one limiting a landlord's ability to evict a tenant for nonpayment of rent during three winter months, one prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for nonpayment of rent for six months after the end of the COVID-19 civil emergency, and one requiring the landlord to accept installment payments of unpaid rent for a certain period of time after the end of the civil emergency. The Rental Housing Association of Washington (RHAWA) and several landlords challenge the constitutionality of these ordinances.
¶2 On summary judgment, the trial court concluded that a provision banning the accrual of interest on unpaid rent during the civil emergency and for one year thereafter was preempted by state law. It upheld the remaining provisions of the three challenged ordinances.
¶3 We conclude that the ordinance prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant for nonpayment of rent for six months after the end of the civil emergency, without affording the landlord the opportunity to challenge a tenant's self-certification of a financial hardship, violates the landlord's right to procedural due process. We otherwise affirm.
¶4 In February 2020, the Seattle City Council enacted Ordinance 126041, now codified as SMC 22.205.080, precluding certain evictions during the winter months ("winter eviction ban"). The winter eviction ban provides:
¶5 [I]t is a defense to eviction if:
SMC 22.205.080(A)-(C). The stated goal of the ordinance is to "protect the public health, safety, and welfare by reducing the number of individuals and families entering into homelessness during the wintertime" and to lower "the number of people at higher risk of developing exposure-related conditions."
¶6 In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic began. On March 14, 2020, Seattle's then Mayor Jenny Durkan issued an emergency order establishing a residential eviction moratorium, which the City Council amended by Resolution 31938 two days later. This moratorium remained uncodified and stated: "It shall be a defense to any eviction action that the eviction of the tenant will occur during the moratorium, unless the eviction action is due to actions by the tenant constituting an imminent threat to the health or safety of [others]." Mayor Durkan extended the emergency order and eviction moratorium to January 15, 2022.2 After taking office in January 2022, the newly elected mayor, Bruce Harrell, extended the moratorium to February 14, 2022,3 then again to February 28, 2022.4
¶7 On May 4, 2020, the City Council, recognizing that the "economic impacts from the COVID-19 emergency are likely to last much longer than the civil emergency itself," enacted Ordinance 126075, extending the eviction ban for an additional six months after the mayor lifts the eviction moratorium ("six-month eviction ban extension"). Ordinance 126075, codified as SMC 22.205.090, provides:
This defense took effect when the eviction moratorium terminated.
¶8 Then, on May 11, 2020, the City Council enacted Ordinance 126081, the "payment plan ordinance."5 It provides:
Ord. 126081 sec. 2. The City Council stated that the purpose of both the six-month eviction ban extension and this payment plan requirement is to reduce financial instability and the risk of homelessness among tenants in Seattle as a result of COVID-19.
¶9 In September 2020, RHAWA and several Seattle landlords brought suit challenging the constitutionality of these ordinances. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court largely upheld the ordinances, but ruled that state law preempts the payment plan ordinance's ban on the accrual of interest on unpaid rent during and for a year after the civil emergency. The Landlords appealed and the City cross-appealed the invalidation of the interest accrual ban.
¶10 In June 2021, the City Council enacted another eviction-protection measure, Ordinance 126368–the civil-emergency defense–now codified as SMC 22.205.100. This ordinances provides:
¶11 SMC 22.205.100 provides:
¶12 This ordinance is similar to SMC 22.205.090, but not identical. While both ordinances contain the requirement that tenants submit a declaration of financial hardship, SMC 22.205.100 additionally requires that the tenant establish that they actually suffered the alleged financial hardship, thus providing an opportunity for the landlord to dispute the application of the defense. The Landlords do not challenge this eviction restriction.
¶13 We review a summary judgment order de novo and perform the same inquiry as the trial court. Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Props., LLC, 196 Wash.2d 199, 205, 471 P.3d 871 (2020). Constitutional questions are issues of law and are also reviewed de novo. City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash.2d 664, 668, 91 P.3d 875 (2004).
¶14 The Landlords present facial constitutional challenges to the ordinances. In facial challenges, we consider only if the ordinances’ language violates the constitution and not whether the ordinance would be constitutional "as applied" to the facts of a particular case. JJR Inc. v. City of Seattle, 126 Wash.2d 1, 3-4, 891 P.2d 720 (1995). We reject a facial claim "if there are any circumstances where the [challenged law] can constitutionally be applied." Wash. State Republican Party v. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 141 Wash.2d 245, 282 n.14, 4 P.3d 808 (2000).
¶15 The Landlords first argue that the ordinances conflict with and are therefore preempted by state law. The trial court ruled that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels
... ... Daniels had 10 days to comply or her ... rental agreement would end; the latter stated she had 10 days ... at 188 (quoting Hous. Auth. v. Pleasant , 126 Wn.App ... 382, 392, 109 ... See Rental Hous. Ass'n v. City ... of Seattle , 22 Wn.App. 2d 426, 452-53, 512 P.3d ... ...