 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilbanks v. Ombrellaro4/19/2005
ed to inform the Ombrellaros of the 'nature of the defective condition.' RCW 59.18.070. Ms. Wilbanks did not inform the Ombrellaros of a specific problem until March 12. The condition was not 'imminently hazardous to life' and therefore the Ombrellaros did not have to make repairs within 24 hours. RCW 59.18.070(1).
The RLTA requires a landlord to make necessary repairs after he or she has received written notice of a defective condition from a tenant. RCW 59.18.060, .070. The landlord is required to commence remedial action within a specified time period depending on the nature of the defect: '(1) Not more than twenty-four hours, where the defective condition deprives the tenant of hot or cold water, heat, or electricity, or is imminently hazardous to life; . . . and (3) Not more than ten days in all other cases.' RCW 59.18.070(1), (3) (emphasis added). The 'remedial work' must be 'completed promptly.' RCW 59.18.070 (emphasis added).
Ms. Wilbanks first contacted Ms. Ombrellaro in January 1999 and mentioned that she thought there was something in the house making them sick. Ms. Wilbanks told Ms. Ombrellaro on March 12 that she found gray fibrous material throughout the house. She told Ms. Ombrellaro her daughter was sick and the doctor thought the air ducts might need to be inspected and cleaned. Ms. Wilbanks reported that the doctor agreed 'the fibers could be what was making us sick.' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 665 (emphasis added). Ms. Wilbanks said the doctor recommended that the family stay out of the house until the ducts were cleaned.
The Wilbanks again contacted the Ombrellaros on March 19. And an appointment was made for the next available date to have the air ducts inspected and cleaned.
The air ducts were inspected on March 22. The inspector determined that the problem was an unsealed return air duct in the attic. The gray fibers were pieces of 'paper fiber insulation' that had been pulled into the central air system. CP at 616. Neither Ms. Wilbanks nor the Ombrellaros knew what the substance was until the home was inspected. The Ombrellaros had the problem repaired the next day.
The trial court ruled that Ms. Wilbanks' January phone call was not sufficient to provide the Ombrellaros with notice of the nature of the problem. And once the Ombrellaros received notice in March, the problem was 'appropriately remedied.' Report of Proceedings (July 31, 2003) (RP) at 29. We agree.
Even if we assume Ms. Wilbanks' version of the facts, the evidence does not support the conclusion that the Ombrellaros failed to timely correct the faulty duct work under the RLTA. Ms. Wilbanks did not give the Ombrellaros notice of 'the nature of the defective condition' until March 12. RCW 59.18.070 (emphasis added); RP at 13; CP at 548. Ms. Wilbanks failed to present any evidence that the problem was known to be 'imminently hazardous to life' when she reported it to the Ombrellaros on March 12. In fact, Ms. Wilbanks did not even know what the gray substance was until the air ducts were inspected and cleaned. CP at 666. Under RCW 59.18.070, the Ombrellaros then had 10 days to 'commence remedial action.'
The Ombrellaros lived out of town and took the only action they could; they hired someone to inspect the property. And they 'commenced remedial action' on March 19 when an appointment was made to have a professional inspect the air ducts on the earliest available date. RCW 59.18.070. That date was March 22. The Ombrellaros had the faulty air duct promptly repaired on March 23, as required by RCW 59.18.070.
The trial judge then properly dismissed any claim based on the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act.
Lease Agreement
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|