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

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.090 (2026)

Landlord's failure to remedy defective condition—Tenant's choice of actions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If, after receipt of written notice, and expiration of the applicable period of time, as provided in RCW 59.18.070, the landlord fails to remedy the defective condition within a reasonable time the tenant may:
(1) Terminate the rental agreement and quit the premises upon written notice to the landlord without further obligation under the rental agreement, in which case he or she shall be discharged from payment of rent for any period following the quitting date, and shall be entitled to a pro rata refund of any prepaid rent, and shall receive a full and specific statement of the basis for retaining any of the deposit together with any refund due in accordance with RCW 59.18.280;
(2) Bring an action in an appropriate court, or at arbitration if so agreed, for any remedy provided under this chapter or otherwise provided by law; or
(3) Pursue other remedies available under this chapter.
[ 2010 c 8 s 19020; 1973 1st ex.s. c 207 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1985–2012 · leading case: State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “[37] RCW 59.18.090(2). [38] See Lightfoot v. MacDonald, 86 Wn.”
Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.090(1), .100(3). Fear of retaliation is no excuse given the tenant’s protection under the statute.”
Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.090(1),.100(3). Fear of retaliation is no excuse given the tenant's protection under the statute.”
Hawkins v. Diel, 269 P.3d 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 59.18.090. A tenant may also recover diminution in rental value due to the defective condition, which the Hawkinses successfully did here.”
Dexheimer v. CDS, INC., 17 P.3d 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.090. "Those remedies, however, are limited to (1) the tenant's right to repair and deduct the cost from the rent, (2) a decrease in the rent based upon the diminished value of the premises, (3) payment of rent into a trust account, or (4) termination of the tenancy.”
Dexheimer v. CDS, Inc., 104 Wash. App. 464 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.090. “Those remedies, however, are limited to (1) the tenant’s right to repair and deduct the cost from the rent, (2) a decrease in the rent based upon the diminished value of the premises, (3) payment of rent into a trust account, or (4) termination of the tenancy.”
Tucker v. Hayford, 75 P.3d 980 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “And it lists the tenant's remedies: (1) terminate the rental agreement; (2) "[b]ring an action in an appropriate court, or at arbitration if so agreed, for any remedy provided under this chapter or otherwise provided by law; " or (3) pursue the other remedies available under the…”
Landis & Landis Constr., LLC v. Nation, 286 P.3d 979 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 59.18.090(1). ¶11- Nation contends that Landis had to proceed under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act and give her notice and an opportunity to eliminate the rodents before suing for *162 breach of contract.”
Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “And it lists the tenant’s remedies: (1) terminate the rental agreement; (2) “[b]ring an action in an appropriate court, or at arbitration if so agreed, for any remedy provided under this chapter or otherwise provided by law;” or (3) pursue the other remedies available under the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.090(1) — 3 cases
Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.090(1), .100(3). Fear of retaliation is no excuse given the tenant’s protection under the statute.”
Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.090(1),.100(3). Fear of retaliation is no excuse given the tenant's protection under the statute.”
Landis & Landis Constr., LLC v. Nation, 286 P.3d 979 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 59.18.090(1). ¶11- Nation contends that Landis had to proceed under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act and give her notice and an opportunity to eliminate the rodents before suing for *162 breach of contract.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.090(2) — 1 case
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). “[37] RCW 59.18.090(2). [38] See Lightfoot v. MacDonald, 86 Wn.”
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.