Panel probes whether landlord's circumvention bars treble damages and statutory fees under RCW 59.18.085

Appellant argued that treble damages under RCW 59.18.085(2) require proof of a subsection (1) violation — specifically the prior notice element — and that absent that predicate, treble damages should be vacated. Counsel told the panel that the statute's plain language creates the predicate and the record lacks the necessary pre‑suit notice finding to sustain subsection (2).

Respondent Stephen Smith countered that the landlord deliberately avoided permitting and inspections, and allowing a party to benefit from that circumvention would frustrate the statute's protective purpose. "So is he gonna be awarded with this circumvention or this effort to circumvent when he avoided the pathway, which would have led to that very notice," Smith asked, urging the court to consider the landlord's conduct in interpreting the statute.

Judges pressed both sides on statutory text and consequence: whether the panel can or should read an anti‑circumvention principle into subsection (2) and whether that would require de facto policy making better suited to the legislature. Counsel acknowledged the narrow statutory language but emphasized the trial court's factual findings about the landlord's conduct.

The panel did not decide the statutory question at argument; the court's eventual opinion will determine whether treble damages and related statutory fees stand.