Senate Bill 5740 (S-1019.1) amends multiple sections of Washington landlord-tenant law and adds a new legislative finding about post‑2018 changes that lengthened unlawful detainer actions and strained affordable housing providers. The bill modifies court jurisdiction language to allow superior courts to appoint attorneys as court commissioners with county legislative approval, prescribes required contents of eviction summonses (including a model form and resource contacts), and establishes procedural rules for orders to show cause and show‑cause hearings in unlawful detainer cases. The bill makes several procedural changes to eviction practice: it sets timelines for show‑cause hearings (hearing set 7–30 days after motion, served at least seven days before), limits defenses a defendant may raise if no written answer was filed before the hearing, requires a bond to be filed before a writ of restitution is issued prior to final judgment, and directs courts to order trial or identify specific factual issues when needed. It also creates a framework, subject to appropriations, for the Office of Civil Legal Aid to arrange appointment of counsel for indigent tenants (with documented verification of indigence required before the response deadline), prioritizes counties with the most evictions, and bars recovery of legal fees for those appointed services. Other procedural items include rules on methods of serving answers or notices of appearance and a defendant’s limited ability to stay a writ in failure‑to‑pay cases by making specified payments. The bill substantially revises the statutory causes and notice periods for ending tenancies (RCW 59.18.650): it clarifies when landlords may end tenancies without cause in limited circumstances, sets specific advance written notice periods for many causes (for example, 60, 90, 30, 20 days depending on the reason), defines an owner “elects to sell” standard with a rebuttable presumption against selling if certain listing actions are not taken, requires written warning notices for repeated violations and explains that correcting a fourth violation is not a defense to termination under that repeated‑violation rule, and provides a wrongful eviction remedy (greater of economic/noneconomic damages or three times monthly rent plus attorneys’ fees and costs). The bill also lists tenant obligations and treats allegations of drug‑related, certain criminal, or gang‑related activity as bases for immediate unlawful detainer in specified circumstances and limits landlord liability for good faith actions on those bases. Several provisions in the provided text are incomplete or cut off, and other listed amendments and the act’s overall effective/expiration dates are not fully present in the extracted material.

If enacted, the bill would change eviction procedures in ways that directly affect landlords, tenants, and courts: landlords would have to follow many more specific advance-notice rules for ending tenancies (60, 90, 30, 20, or 10 days depending on the reason), use a new model summons and service methods, and in many cases post a bond before getting a pre-judgment writ of restitution. Courts would be able to appoint attorneys as commissioners with county approval, and show-cause hearings must be scheduled 7–30 days after a motion with at least seven days’ service; defendants who don’t file a written answer face limits at the hearing. The bill also clarifies tenant duties, allows landlords to proceed immediately in cases alleging drug, criminal, or gang activity (and shields landlords who act in good faith), and creates stronger remedies for tenants removed in violation of the law, increasing landlords’ potential liability. The people most affected are landlords and affordable housing operators, who face tighter procedural rules, added financial risk from bonds and wrongful-eviction damages, and more administrative notice requirements; tenants, especially low-income tenants, would more often get court-appointed counsel (the Office of Civil Legal Aid implements this and the state pays costs subject to appropriations), which increases representation but requires verification of indigence before the response deadline. Courts, county legislative bodies, clerks, and the Office of Civil Legal Aid will have new responsibilities and likely added workload and costs. Several important details are missing from the provided text—portions of Sec. 6 and other amendments, plus exact effective and expiration dates—so the precise timing and some operational effects remain uncertain.