fact exists about the landlord's right to possession and any other relief
requested.9 If so, the court grants this relief. If not, the court sets the case for
6 Munden v. Hazelriqq. 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711 P.2d 295 (1985); RCW
59.12.030.
7 RCW 59.12.090.
8 Indigo. 169 Wn. App. at 421; RCW 59.18.370.
9 RCW 59.18.380.
-4-
NO. 72611-1-1/5
trial unless the court decides the landlord has no legal right to the relief
requested and dismisses the case.10
Although a show cause hearing is not the final determination of the rights
of the parties in an unlawful detainer action, the trial court frequently decides the
necessity of a trial at the hearing.11 As occurred here, the show cause hearing
often provides the only opportunity for a tenant to present any evidence.12
The Tenants contend that substantial material issues of fact exist about
adequate service, the content of the notice, and just cause for terminating the
tenancy. As a result, they claim that the trial court should have dismissed this
case or set it for trial.
Sufficiency of Service
The Tenants contend that the Landlords did not properly serve the notice
terminating their tenancy. The Tenants also assert that even if the time and
manner of service was proper, Faciszewski's declaration of service did not
comply with the statutory form and content requirements.
RCW 59.12.040 controls service of the termination notice and provides
three methods of service: