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

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.250 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Initiation by the landlord of any action listed in RCW 59.18.240 within ninety days after a good faith and lawful act by the tenant as enumerated in RCW 59.18.240, or within ninety days after any inspection or proceeding of a governmental agency resulting from such act, shall create a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, that the action is a reprisal or retaliatory action against the tenant: PROVIDED, That if at the time the landlord gives notice of termination of tenancy pursuant to chapter 59.12 RCW the tenant is in arrears in rent or in breach of any other lease or rental obligation, there is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the landlord's action is neither a reprisal nor retaliatory action against the tenant: PROVIDED FURTHER, That if the court finds that the tenant made a complaint or report to a governmental authority within ninety days after notice of a proposed increase in rent or other action in good faith by the landlord, there is a rebuttable presumption that the complaint or report was not made in good faith: PROVIDED FURTHER, That no presumption against the landlord shall arise under this section, with respect to an increase in rent, if the landlord, in a notice to the tenant of increase in rent, specifies reasonable grounds for said increase, which grounds may include a substantial increase in market value due to remedial action under this chapter: PROVIDED FURTHER, That the presumption of retaliation, with respect to an eviction, may be rebutted by evidence that it is not practical to make necessary repairs while the tenant remains in occupancy. In any action or eviction proceeding where the tenant prevails upon his or her claim or defense that the landlord has violated this section, the tenant shall be entitled to recover his or her costs of suit or arbitration, including a reasonable attorney's fee, and where the landlord prevails upon his or her claim he or she shall be entitled to recover his or her costs of suit or arbitration, including a reasonable attorney's fee: PROVIDED FURTHER, That neither party may recover attorney's fees to the extent that their legal services are provided at no cost to them.
[ 2010 c 8 s 19026; 1983 c 264 s 10; 1973 1st ex.s. c 207 s 25.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 147 P.3d 1305 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 147 P.3d 1305 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “290 mandates costs and fees to the prevailing party in an unlawful detainer action, except for any fees related to a claim of retaliatory eviction, which is governed by RCW 59.18.250. In the alternative, Hawk argues that if an award of costs and fees under RCW 59.”
Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 136 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “290 mandates costs and fees to the prevailing party in an unlawful detainer action, except for any fees related to a claim of retaliatory eviction, which is governed by RCW 59.18.250. In the alternative, Hawk argues that if an award of costs and fees under RCW 59.”
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “Although the Act does provide for attorney fees, an award is limited to instances of retaliatory action (RCW 59.18.250), recovery of deposits (RCW 59.”
Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 59.18.250. In sum, the trial court erred by predicating an award of general tort damages for personal injuries on violations of the RLTA.”
Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Indeed, there is a presumption of retaliation if the landlord takes adverse action toward the tenant in the 90 days after the tenant enforces her rights under the RLTA.”
Stephanus v. Anderson, 613 P.2d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “They contend the sole purpose of the list and the exception is to define conduct which can be presumed retaliatory under RCW 59.18.250. RCW 59.18.250 reads: Initiation by the landlord of any action listed in RCW 59.”
Carlstrom v. Hanline, 990 P.2d 986 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 59.18.250 creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliatory eviction where a landlord evicts within ninety days after a tenant complains to a government agency.”
Pac. NW Land, LLC, V. Sheila Swan (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “Therefore, under RCW 59.18.250, a presumption arises that Pacific NW Land’s action was not retaliatory.”
Kristie J. Tedford, V Charles L. Guy, Angie Mattler (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “RCW 59.18.250 provides that if an eviction is initiated within ninety days after the tenant asserts a right, there is a “rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof” that the action is retaliatory.”
Scott Egbert v. Richard Jorgensen (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “RCW 59.18.250. The RLTA defines a “retaliatory action” as an action taken by the landlord, including eviction, that was “intended primarily to retaliate against a tenant because of the tenant’s good faith and lawful” complaint or report to a government agency.”
Columbus Park v. Patricia Croghan (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “At the conclusion of trial, the 1 RCW 59.18.250 provides, “Initiation by the landlord of any action listed in RCW 59.”
James v. FPI Mgmt. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “CODE 9 §§ 59.18.250, .250). As FPI Defendants summarize: 10 Landlords are not permitted to evict or raise the rent for a tenant within ninety days of the tenant filing a good faith civil complaint or making a complaint 11 to a governmental agency.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 59.18.250(2)(c) — 1 case
Catholic Hous. Servs. of E. Washington v. Kenneth Truitt (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.