| |
 |
| WA State FAIR HOUSING UPDATE: October 2001 |
|
A Frequently Asked Question By Christopher T. Benis, Harrison, Benis & Spence, LLP Q: I have an unmarried couple who share an apartment. They had a fight recently and the woman obtained a court order against the male room-mate. They are month-to-month tenants and the property is in Lake Forest Park. I am concerned that he'll be back and create a dangerous situation for my other tenants. Can I just terminate the woman's tenancy and not have to worry about this situation? A: The answer to your question is not explicitly covered by the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA). However, we can find some guidance within its terms that will help answer your question. First, tenants are prohibited by RCW 59.18.130 from engaging in conduct which is "(a) Imminently hazardous to the physical safety of other persons on the premises; and (b) (i) Entails physical assaults upon another person which result in an arrest; or (ii) Entails the unlawful use of a firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in RCW 9A.04.110 which results in an arrest, including threatening another tenant or the landlord with a firearm or other deadly weapon under RCW 59.18.352. The conclusion of the statute states, "nothing in this subsection (8) shall authorize the termination of tenancy and eviction of the victim of a physical assault or the victim of the use or threatened use of a firearm or other deadly weapon. If your tenant was a victim of conduct as defined in this statute (i.e. there was a physical assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon), the statute explicitly prohibits terminating her tenancy. You cannot terminate her tenancy. With a strict reading of the statute, you conceivably have a right to terminate a tenant where there was no physical assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon. I have never litigated this statute in court, and therefore cannot provide definitive guidance. Should you elect to terminate the tenancy, even if there is no violation of the RLTA, you still have a risk that your tenant may make a claim for a fair housing violation. In doing so, the tenant may assert a "disparate impact" theory. The legal argument is that women are more likely to hold protective orders than men. A policy which distinguishes on that basis may thus disproportionately impact women tenants. For that reason, it is my general recommendation that you refrain from terminating this tenant unless, based upon her own actions, you feel she creates a threat to your other tenants or their quiet enjoyment of the property. Before making a final recommendation, I would want to know more facts about this woman's rental history. This may include the number of police calls, the contents of any police reports, etc. If you permit the woman to remain in occupancy, you should take reasonable steps to comply with the spirit of the order. For example, if she requests that the locks be changed, you should comply. |
|
KCOCR Fair Housing Home Page | Your comments about this website Updated: Jan. 2, 2002 |
|
King County | OCR | News | Services | Comments | Search Links to external sites do not constitute
endorsements by King County. |