Stephen Faciszewski v. Michael R. Brown

This case concerns provisions of Seattle's "Just Cause

Eviction Ordinance," codified at Seattle Municipal Code 22.206.160(C). We must

determine whether the court in an unlawful detainer action can consider evidence

challenging just cause once the landlord files the certification allowed under Seattle

Municipal Code 22.206.160(C)(4).

The court commissioner presiding over the show cause hearing in this case set

the matter for trial after determining that there were issues of fact as to the landlords'

Faciszewski, et al. v. Brown, et al., 92978-5

stated reason for the eviction. The King County Superior Court revised the

commissioner's ruling, issued a writ of restitution restoring possession of the

property to the landlords, and struck the trial date because "the statutory scheme does

not require ... a trial once [the landlord files a] statement under penalty of perjury."

Verbatim Transcript of Proceedings (VTP) (Sept. 2, 2014) at 22-23. The Court of

Appeals affirmed, reading the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to provide only for

posteviction remedies once the landlord files a certification with the city of Seattle

(City). We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the superior court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michael R. Brown and Jill A. Wah1eithner (Tenants) received a notice of

eviction from Stephen Faciszewski and Virginia L. Klamon (Landlords) invoking

Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 22.206.160(C)(1)(e). Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1, 2, 14.

In accordance with that provision, the notice stated Landlords were terminating the

tenancy because "[Landlords] seek to possess the Property so that at least one

immediate family member (or, in the alternative, one of us) may occupy the [Seattle]

Property as a principal residence." Id. at 22. Landlords subsequently clarified that

Faciszewski's parents would be moving into the house so that Faciszewski could care

for his ailing father. Id. at 45-46; VTP (Aug. 12, 2014) at 3. Following his father's

-2-

Faciszewski, eta!. v. Brown, eta!., 92978-5

death, Faciszewski inclicated that only his mother planned to move into the house. CP

at46.

Because of an earlier dispute, Tenants believed that Landlords' stated reason was

a pretext. Id. 1 Tenants thus began researching Faciszewski's parents on the Internet.

Tenants learned the following facts regarding Faciszewski's mother: (1) she owned a

home in Colorado that was not listed for sale or for rent, id. at 46, 82-83; (2) she was

CONCLUSION

We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the superior court for further

proceedings consistent with our interpretation of the JCEO. That the purpose of the JCEO is to prevent arbitrary evictions and provide tenants with more protections than under state law suggests that the tenant's posteviction remedies are not exclusive once the landlord files a certification. Nothing in the JCEO itself prevents the tenant from challenging the landlord's certification. Rather, the JCEO expressly requires that the

tenant have the opportunity to contest the eviction at the show cause hearing. We hold that such an opportunity includes contesting the landlord's certification of intent.