- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MacRAE v. WAY
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff (Gordon S. MacRae) instituted an unlawful detainer action under RCW 59.12.030(3) for failure to pay rent. On May 29, 1962, a notice to pay rent or vacate was purportedly served; defendant (Jack Eugene Way, Jr.) did not receive a copy until May 31, 1962, by mail. At the time of the alleged service plaintiff was the lessee and defendant a sub-lessee. On June 1, 1962, plaintiff surrendered his leasehold to his lessor, who leased to Consolidated Moving, Inc. Plaintiff commenced the unlawful detainer action on June 6, 1962, serving and filing complaint, posting bond, and securing issuance and service of a writ of restitution; an amended complaint followed. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the notice to pay or vacate was improperly served. On the day of the trial court's oral decision, Consolidated served defendant with a notice and brought its own unlawful detainer action, obtaining restoration and back rent from June 1, 1962; defendant vacated before plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal; defendant moved to dismiss the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- May an action for unlawful detainer under RCW 59.12.030(3) be maintained by a plaintiff-lessor who conveys all of his possessory interest in the subject property to a third party after service of the statutory 3‑day notice to pay rent or vacate and before expiration of the 3‑day period and commencement of the action by service and filing of the statutory summons and complaint?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Wilson v. Daniels, 31 Wn.2d 633, 198 P.2d 496 | That unlawful detainer actions are statutory, summary proceedings designed to hasten recovery of possession. | Cited among authorities establishing the summary nature and primary purpose of unlawful detainer proceedings. |
| Woodward v. Blanchett, 36 Wn.2d 27, 216 P.2d 228 | That unlawful detainer actions are statutory, summary proceedings designed to hasten recovery of possession. | Cited as supporting authority for the characterization of unlawful detainer proceedings. |
| Little v. Catania, 48 Wn.2d 890, 297 P.2d 255 | That unlawful detainer actions are statutory, summary proceedings designed to hasten recovery of possession. | Cited to support the limited remedial scope of unlawful detainer actions. |
| Muscatel v. Storey, 56 Wn.2d 635, 354 P.2d 931 | That unlawful detainer actions are statutory, summary proceedings designed to hasten recovery of possession. | Cited in support of the court's description of the nature and scope of unlawful detainer proceedings. |
| Young v. Riley, 59 Wn.2d 50, 365 P.2d 769 | That the superior court in unlawful detainer sits as a special statutory tribunal limited to possession and its incidents. | Relied on to show the superior court's limited jurisdiction in unlawful detainer actions. |
| Stevens v. Jones, 40 Wn. 484, 82 P. 754 | That the principal subject matter of unlawful detainer is possession; if plaintiff conveys all interest before commencement, the controversy as to possession ceases and claims for damages must be pursued in ordinary civil action. | Applied to conclude plaintiff's surrender of his leasehold ended his right to possession and relegated any claim for past rent to an ordinary civil action. |
| Sundholm v. Patch, 62 Wn.2d 244, 382 P.2d 262 | That the superior court is limited to deciding right to possession and designated incidents in unlawful detainer proceedings. | Cited to reinforce the limited jurisdictional scope of unlawful detainer proceedings. |
| State ex rel. Robertson v. Superior Court, 95 Wn. 447, 164 P. 63 | That jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer action arises from service of the statutory summons, not from service of statutory notices. | Used to support the proposition that jurisdiction for unlawful detainer is obtained by service of summons rather than by service of the notice to pay or vacate. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that unlawful detainer proceedings are summary statutory actions limited to deciding the right to possession and its incidents (restitution and rent or damages), and that superior court jurisdiction in such proceedings arises from service of the statutory summons rather than from service of statutory notices. Applying Stevens v. Jones, the court determined that when plaintiff surrendered his lessor's leasehold interest on June 1, 1962, he lost his possessory right as against defendant and thus the controversy over possession "ceased" between plaintiff and defendant. Because any claim for past-due rent is incidental to the right to possession in an unlawful detainer action, once the right to possession was lost plaintiff's remedy for rent was relegated to an ordinary civil action. For these reasons the court answered the posed question in the negative and granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, without reaching the merits of the parties' contentions regarding notice service.
Holding and Implications
The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal and held that a plaintiff may not maintain an unlawful detainer action after conveying all of his possessory interest prior to commencement of the action.
Implications: The direct effect is that plaintiff's unlawful detainer action was dismissed and any claim for past rent must be pursued in an ordinary civil action; the opinion does not announce any new broader precedent beyond applying existing authorities.
[1] Landlord and Tenant — Unlawful Detainer — Jurisdiction. Unlawful detainer actions are special statutory proceedings with the limited purpose of hastening recovery of possession of real property, and the superior court's jurisdiction in such an action is limited to the primary issue of right to possession together with the incidental issues of restitution and rent or damages.
[2] Same — Unlawful Detainer — Jurisdiction. A superior court obtains jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer action from the service of the statutory summons, not from service of any of the statutory notices.
Same — Unlawful Detainer — Possessory Interest — Necessity.See Am. Jur., Landlord and Tenant (1st ed. § 1016).
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his action for unlawful detainer instituted under RCW 59.12.030(3), i.e., for failure to pay rent. The basis upon which the trial court dismissed the action was that the notice to pay rent or vacate was improperly served.
On the date of the alleged service of the notice to pay or vacate, May 29, 1962, plaintiff's possessory interest in the property involved was that of a lessee. Defendant was plaintiff's sub-lessee. It is undisputed that on June 1, 1962, plaintiff surrendered his leasehold interest to his lessor, who, in turn, negotiated a lease with Consolidated Moving, Inc., a newly formed Washington corporation.
It is undisputed that defendant did not receive a copy of the notice until May 31, 1962, when it was delivered to him through the mail.
On June 6, 1962, plaintiff commenced this action in unlawful detainer by serving and filing his complaint. He posted bond and concurrently secured the issuance and service of a writ of restitution. Thirteen days later an amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint prayed for (a) the termination of the tenancy and that possession be restored to plaintiff; (b) a writ of restitution directing the sheriff to deliver possession of the premises to plaintiff; (c) recovery of $300 in back rent; and (d) reimbursement for costs and disbursements to plaintiff.
The cause came on for trial on June 29, 1962, at the conclusion of which the trial court orally announced its dismissal of the action upon the grounds heretofore stated. Formal judgment of dismissal was entered on July 27, 1962, from which plaintiff appeals.
On the day of the trial court's oral decision, Consolidated Moving, Inc., served defendant with a notice to pay rent or vacate, and thereafter commenced an unlawful detainer action which resulted in a judgment of restoration and for back rent from June 1, 1962. No appeal has been taken from Consolidated's judgment, and defendant quit the premises before plaintiff's notice of appeal in this action.
Following plaintiff's notice of appeal, defendant moved to dismiss, and this court, after hearing arguments upon the motion, ordered it "passed to the merits." The issue raised by the motion to dismiss is: May an action for unlawful detainer, pursuant to RCW 59.12.030(3), be maintained by a plaintiff-lessor who has conveyed all of his possessory interest in the subject property to a third party after service of the statutory 3-day notice to pay rent or vacate and before expiration of the 3-day period and commencement of the action by service and filing of the statutory summons and complaint.
Inadvertently counsel for the parties were notified that the motion had been denied. Upon discovery of the error, counsel were advised thereof and afforded an opportunity to submit additional written arguments.
We answer the question in the negative.
[1, 2] Unlawful detainer actions are statutorily created summary proceedings, primarily designed for the purpose of hastening recovery of possession of real property. Wilson v. Daniels, 31 Wn.2d 633, 198 P.2d 496; Woodward v. Blanchett, 36 Wn.2d 27, 216 P.2d 228; Little v. Catania, 48 Wn.2d 890, 297 P.2d 255; Muscatel v. Storey, 56 Wn.2d 635, 354 P.2d 931; Young v. Riley, 59 Wn.2d 50, 365 P.2d 769. The principal subject matter of the action is the possession of the subject property. Stevens v. Jones, 40 Wn. 484, 82 P. 754. In such proceedings the superior court sits as a special statutory tribunal, limited to deciding the primary issue of right to possession together with the statutorily designated incidents thereto, i.e., restitution and rent or damages. It does not sit as a court of general civil jurisdiction. Stevens v. Jones, supra; Young v. Riley, supra; Sundholm v. Patch, 62 Wn.2d 244, 382 P.2d 262. Such jurisdiction as the superior court obtains arises out of service of the statutory summons. It does not arise from service of the statutory notices, e.g., notice to quit, notice to pay rent or vacate. State ex rel. Robertson v. Superior Court, 95 Wn. 447, 164 P. 63.
[3] In Stevens v. Jones, supra, this court was faced with a similar problem in that plaintiff had conveyed all interest in the property prior to commencement of an analogous action. Under such facts, the appeal was dismissed, the rationale being that, since the "subject matter of the controversy was the possession of the land," the controversy "ceased" as between the plaintiff and defendant, when plaintiff gave up the right of possession. With regard to the plaintiff's claim for damages, analogous to the instant claim for rent, we said (p. 486):
Examination of the transcript and briefs in Stevens v. Jones, 40 Wn. 484, 82 P. 754, reveals the action to have been pursued under the provisions of RCW 59.12.030(1) and (4).
". . . Any claim she may have had for damages could be waged in this summary action only as an incident to her right to possession. The right to damages is a personal one, and when unaccompanied with the right to recover possession, must be waged in an ordinary civil action. . . ."
In the instant case, when plaintiff on June 1, 1962, surrendered his lessor's interest in the premises to his landlord, he lost his possessory right in the property as against defendant. His right to recover past due rent owing to him from the defendant was relegated to the processes of an ordinary civil action. His appeal from the judgment dismissing his action in unlawful detainer avails him nought. Accordingly, we do not reach the points raised on the appeal, i.e., the validity of the service upon the defendant of the notice to pay rent or vacate.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Alert