On appeal, Mr. Christensen assigns three errors. First, Mr. Christensen claims the
trial court erred in finding his refusal to accept payment from the CAC constituted
income discrimination (count 1). Secondly, Mr. Christensen contends the trial court
erred in finding his assessment of interest on the balance owed by Ms. Heston constituted
a violation of RCW 59.18.625 (counts 2-9). Lastly, Mr. Christensen asserts the trial court
erred in finding his refusal to return Ms. Heston’s security deposit constituted a violation
of RCW 59.18.280(1) (count 10).
The summary judgment procedure is designed to avoid the time and expense of an
unnecessary trial. Maybury v. City of Seattle, 53 Wn.2d 716, 719, 336 P.2d 878 (1959).
Orders on summary judgment are reviewed de novo. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358,
370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must
consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. (citing Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658,
663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998)). “[W]hen reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion,
questions of fact may be determined as a matter of law.” Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 39271-6-III
Heston v. Christensen
768, 775, 698 P.2d 77 (1985) (citing LaPlante v. State, 85 Wn.2d 154, 531 P.2d 299
(1975)).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Keck, 184 Wn.2d at
370. “A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends in whole
or in part.” Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co.,