Wash. Rev. Code » Title 59 · Chapter 59.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.040 (2026)

Living arrangements exempted from chapter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter, unless established primarily to avoid its application, in which event the provisions of this chapter shall control:
(1) Residence at an institution, whether public or private, where residence is merely incidental to detention or the provision of medical, religious, educational, recreational, or similar services including, but not limited to, correctional facilities, licensed nursing homes, monasteries and convents, and hospitals;
(2) Occupancy under a bona fide earnest money agreement to purchase or contract of sale of the dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part, where the tenant is, or stands in the place of, the purchaser;
(3) Occupancy under a written rental agreement entered into by a seller and buyer of a dwelling unit, for the seller to retain possession of the dwelling unit after closing of the sale of the dwelling unit, if the conditions in (a) through (c) of this subsection are satisfied.
(a) The rental agreement permits the seller to remain in the dwelling unit for no more than three months after closing, and the buyer does not accept any rent payments from the seller after three months from closing;
(b) At the time of closing of the sale, the dwelling unit was not a distressed home as defined in chapter 61.34 RCW; and
(c) During negotiation of the purchase agreement or at the time of closing of the sale, the seller was represented by an attorney licensed to practice law in this state or by a real estate broker or managing broker licensed under chapter 18.85 RCW;
(4) Residence in a hotel, motel, or other transient lodging whose operation is defined in RCW 19.48.010;
(5) Rental agreements entered into pursuant to the provisions of chapter 47.12 RCW where occupancy is by an owner-condemnee and where such agreement does not violate the public policy of this state of ensuring decent, safe, and sanitary housing and is so certified by the consumer protection division of the attorney general's office;
(6) Rental agreements for the use of any single-family residence that are incidental to leases or rentals entered into in connection with a lease of land to be used primarily for agricultural purposes;
(7) Rental agreements providing housing for seasonal agricultural employees while provided in conjunction with such employment;
(8) Rental agreements with the state of Washington, department of natural resources, on public lands governed by Title 79 RCW;
(9) Occupancy by an employee of a landlord whose right to occupy is conditioned upon employment in or about the premises.
[ 2023 c 22 s 1; 1989 c 342 s 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 207 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Gray v. Pierce Cnty. Hous. Auth., 97 P.3d 26 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gray v. Pierce Cnty. Hous. Auth., 97 P.3d 26 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “RCW 59.18.040 provides in relevant part: The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter .”
Gray v. Pierce Cnty. Hous. Auth., 123 Wash. App. 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 59.18.040 provides in relevant part: The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter (1) Residence at an institution, whether public or private, where residence is merely incidental to detention or the provision of medical,…”
Sunrise Grp. Homes, Inc. v. Ferguson, 777 P.2d 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Congregate care facilities, while not among the named living arrangements explicitly excluded from the RLTA such as licensed nursing homes, convents, and hospitals, RCW 59.18.040, do fall within the broader language of the exclusion for "[Residence at an institution, .”
State v. Roberts, 908 P.2d 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “12 Nothing in RCW 59.18.040 exempts Roberts’s purported arrangement with Sylvester from the coverage of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act.”
State v. Drake, 201 P.3d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “His personal items were then packed up and stored. ¶ 13 We are unable to identify from the record the legal mechanism employed by the New Washington Apartments to oust Mr.”
Bar K Land Co. v. Webb, 864 P.2d 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “RCW 59.18.040. Ejectment is a remedy for one who, claiming a paramount title, is out of possession.”
O'BRIEN v. Detty, 576 P.2d 1334 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “RCW 59.18.040(4). It also requires a landlord to maintain a dwelling unit in reasonably weathertight condition.”
Garneau v. City of Seattle, 897 F. Supp. 1318 (W.D. Wash. 1995). “8 Because the classifications provided in RCW 59.18.040 and the TRAO are “rationally related to a legitimate state interest,” Ka-waoka, 17 F.”
Lacey Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 Wash. App. 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Congregate care facilities, while not among the named living arrangements explicitly excluded from the RLTA such as licensed nursing homes, convents, and hospitals, RCW 59.18.040, do fall within the broader language of the exclusion for “Residence at an institution,.”
Lacey Nursing Ctr. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REV., 11 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Congregate care facilities, while not among the named living arrangements explicitly excluded from the RLTA such as licensed nursing homes, convents, and hospitals, RCW 59.18.040, do fall within the broader language of the exclusion for [r]esidence at an institution, .”
Kedric D. Jackson, V Hometowne Studios, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 7× “040’s preamble states, “The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter, unless established primarily to avoid its application, in which event the provisions of this chapter shall control.” One of the excluded living…”
Sollenberger v. Cranwell, 614 P.2d 234 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “1 RCW 59.18.040(8) bars the application of RCW 59.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.040(1) — 5 cases
Gray v. Pierce Cnty. Hous. Auth., 97 P.3d 26 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 59.18.040 provides in relevant part: The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter .”
Gray v. Pierce Cnty. Hous. Auth., 123 Wash. App. 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 59.18.040 provides in relevant part: The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter (1) Residence at an institution, whether public or private, where residence is merely incidental to detention or the provision of medical,…”
Sunrise Grp. Homes, Inc. v. Ferguson, 777 P.2d 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “Congregate care facilities, while not among the named living arrangements explicitly excluded from the RLTA such as licensed nursing homes, convents, and hospitals, RCW 59.18.040, do fall within the broader language of the exclusion for "[Residence at an institution, .”
Lacey Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 103 Wash. App. 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Congregate care facilities, while not among the named living arrangements explicitly excluded from the RLTA such as licensed nursing homes, convents, and hospitals, RCW 59.18.040, do fall within the broader language of the exclusion for “Residence at an institution,.”
Lacey Nursing Ctr. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REV., 11 P.3d 839 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Congregate care facilities, while not among the named living arrangements explicitly excluded from the RLTA such as licensed nursing homes, convents, and hospitals, RCW 59.18.040, do fall within the broader language of the exclusion for [r]esidence at an institution, .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.040(4) — 2 cases
O'BRIEN v. Detty, 576 P.2d 1334 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “RCW 59.18.040(4). It also requires a landlord to maintain a dwelling unit in reasonably weathertight condition.”
Kedric D. Jackson, V Hometowne Studios, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “040’s preamble states, “The following living arrangements are not intended to be governed by the provisions of this chapter, unless established primarily to avoid its application, in which event the provisions of this chapter shall control.” One of the excluded living…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.040(8) — 3 cases
Sollenberger v. Cranwell, 614 P.2d 234 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “1 RCW 59.18.040(8) bars the application of RCW 59.”
Marian Landa v. Haellen Holiday (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Syhadley, Llc, V. Addie Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.