Understanding the Implications of Princeton Property Management, Inc. v. Allen
Introduction
The recent Court of Appeals decision in Princeton Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Allen seeks to strike a balance between the enforcement of settlement agreements in unlawful detainer actions and the protection of tenant rights under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA). Landlords and tenants alike must navigate these legal waters carefully. But in an age of severe evictions backlog, where, for example, King County has been forced to expand its evictions calendar and increase the number of judicial officers available for such hearings, landlords, in particular, should ensure their settlement agreements respect statutory tenant protections. Not only does this approach uphold tenant rights—it promotes efficiency in the unlawful detainer process and ensures that settlement agreements are enforceable in unlawful detainer actions.
Case Background
The dispute in Princeton Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Allen arose when Princeton Property Management rented an apartment to the Allens. Allegations against the Allens regarding the apartment’s condition led to Princeton issuing a three-day notice to quit for waste or nuisance. Princeton then filed an unlawful detainer action against the Allens. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement under CR 2A, where the Allens agreed to tender past-due rent by a specified deadline.
When the Allens missed the deadline in clear breach of the settlement agreement, Princeton moved for an immediate writ of restitution (i.e., an order to evict the tenants), as permitted by the settlement agreement. The Court issued the writ of restitution and denied the Allens’ motion to reinstate their tenancy. The Allens were then evicted. The Allens appealed the decision, arguing that the Superior Court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement on the basis that the agreement was void and unenforceable under a specific anti-waiver provision of the RLTA. The case was brought before Division 2 of the Court of Appeals of Washington.
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Allens, concluding that the settlement agreement violated the RLTA’s anti-waiver provision RCW 59.18.230(1)(b), which generally voids any agreement made in an unlawful detainer action if it waives any of the tenant’s rights under the RLTA. Under the anti-waiver provision, any settlement agreement that attempts to waive tenant rights—such as the right to notice, the right to a hearing, and the right to legal representation—is considered void and unenforceable.
In this case, the settlement agreement contained provisions that allowed either party to set a show cause hearing with a minimum of five days’ notice if they believed the agreement had been breached. It also enabled Princeton to seek a writ of restitution based solely on the breach of the settlement agreement. Most notably, the agreement explicitly stated that the “usual unlawful detainer procedures” did not apply, effectively bypassing the protections typically available to tenants under the RLTA.
The Court noted that these clauses directly conflicted with the anti-waiver provision of the RLTA, as it denied the Allens the procedural due process protections they were entitled to during an unlawful detainer process.
Legal Perspective
While the Court’s decision aligns with the statutory protection of tenant rights, the reasoning is somewhat problematic, especially considering the practical realities that landlords face today. The Court’s interpretation suggests that any attempt to streamline the enforcement of a settlement agreement in the context of an unlawful detainer action is a waiver of the tenant’s rights. This perspective could lead to a slippery slope for landlords, particularly with the current backlog of unlawful detainer actions.
The language of the settlement agreement in Princeton Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Allen, which allowed the parties to “forego the usual unlawful detainer procedures,” took aim at procedure, not tenant rights. The real-life consequence of the Court’s decision was that the tenants were essentially rewarded for breaching the settlement agreement by being allowed to remain in possession of the premises for even longer.
The Court was concerned about the waiver of rights that are embedded in the procedural aspects of an unlawful detainer action, but in this context, it is the Court’s duty to ensure that rights are not being waived inappropriately. Rather than invalidating an agreement outright, the Court refused to enforce a settlement agreement (and a landlord’s rights) while also protecting a tenant’s rights. In this case especially, the tenants had already enjoyed the rights contained in the “usual unlawful detainer procedures.” It was only when they breached their one chance at redemption that they insisted their rights had been waived.
This decision should compel landlords to reconsider how they draft settlement agreements in the context of unlawful detainers. Landlords should now be extremely careful not to waive any tenant rights to avoid being forced to start the unlawful detainer process anew.
