King County Housing Authority v. Knight: Resolving Prior Conflicts in Interpretation and Clarifying the Impact of the CARES Act on Eviction Actions

On February 20, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a significant landlord-tenant ruling in King County Housing Authority v. Knight, 563 P.3d 1058 (Wash. 2025), adopting a narrow interpretation of the 30-day notice requirement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (‘CARES’) Act U.S.C. §9058(c)(1).[1]  Under Knight, the CARES 30-day notice requirement only applies to evictions for nonpayment of rent.  The decision emphasizes that:

• The CARES Act was designed as emergency economic relief during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the primary purpose was to prevent tenants from being evicted due to financial hardship.

• The CARES Act’s notice provision must be read in conjunction with the eviction moratorium in the Act, which was explicitly limited to the nonpayment of rent or other charges.

• Expanding the 30-day notice requirement to all evictions (and not just those based on nonpayment) would not only override Washington State landlord-tenant laws but would also override traditional property rights. If this was the intended action, Congress would have had to make that “unmistakably clear,” in the law, which it did not do.

The reasoning of the Court was clear—CARES dealt with evictions based on nonpayment of rent and courts should not expand the 30-day notice requirement to other types of evictions. 

The Background of Knight:

The Knight case arose when the King County Housing Authority (KCHA) sought to evict a tenant, Andre Knight, for repeated nuisance and criminal activity at his residence. KCHA had substantial documentation of a long history of violations, which included police reports as well as multiple warnings and failed compliance efforts.  KCHA served a three-day notice to vacate per Washington law applicable to nuisance and criminal activity.  See RCW 59.18.650(2)(c). The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that the applicable section of the CARES Act, U.S.C. §9058(c)(1), required a 30-day notice even for lease violations unrelated to rent. The Housing Authority appealed to Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s ruling.  The case was then appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court.

Why This Ruling is Significant:

Prior to the Knight decision, there was uncertainty in the interpretation of the CARES Act in Washington courts.  For example, Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals held that the CARES Act's notice requirement applied to all evictions regardless of any nonpayment of rent (e.g. Pendleton Place, LLC v. Asentista, 29 Wn. App. 2d 516). Meanwhile, Division I ruled that the 30-day notice requirement applied only to nonpayment of rent. Hous. Auth. of the Cty. of King v. Knight, 563 P.3d 1058, 1060 (Wash. 2025).  The inconsistency in the application of the law across the state resulted in confusion and obstacles to proper compliance for lessors. With the decision in King County Housing Authority v. Knight, the Washington Supreme Court resolved the appellate split, and paved the way for a standardized notice process for evictions in Washington.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LESSORS:

Clarity on Notice Requirements: The ruling provides clear guidance for landlords regarding the notice requirements under the CARES Act, and importantly, this guidance is universal across Washington. Landlords are only required to provide a 30-day notice for evictions due to nonpayment of rent. For other types of evictions, such as those involving lease violations, nuisance, or criminal activity, landlords can follow state and local laws, which can allow for shorter notice periods.

Ability to Timely Address Dangerous Actions or Serious Lease Violations: The decision solidifies the ability of Washington landlords to address serious lease violations promptly and without unnecessary delays. This is particularly important for maintaining the well-being of other tenants and staff. When there are concerns about violence or criminal violations, time is of the essence, and waiting for 30 days may not be feasible or safe.  Landlords can now proceed with evictions for waste, nuisance, serious lease violations, or criminal conduct (per RCW 59.18.650(2)(c)) without being constrained by the 30-day notice requirement.

Legal Precedent: The ruling reinforces the principle that federal regulations should not override established state eviction procedures unless the federal law explicitly requires it. Moreover, the ruling sets a legal precedent that may influence future cases involving eviction notices and the interpretation of federal laws that affect state landlord-tenant regulations.

In Summary:

The Washington State Supreme Court's decision in King County Housing Authority v. Knight is a pivotal ruling that clarifies the scope of the CARES Act's notice requirements and reinforces landlords' rights to manage their properties effectively per state law. Landlords should stay informed about both federal and state regulations to ensure compliance and protect their interests.

Every landlord-tenant situation and potential unlawful detainer action is very fact dependent.  If you have questions concerning whether your situation falls under this particular 30-day Notice, contact our team of real estate attorneys at Holmquist + Gardiner PLLC. 

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

[1] Section 9058 of the CARES Act involved a temporary 120 day moratorium on eviction filings based on nonpayment of rent or other charges for dwellings on properties that are federally “covered” as defined (such as participating in a federal housing program or having federally backed loan). After the 120 days, Section (c)(1) stated lessors cannot require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling until 30 days after a notice to vacate is provided.