Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 837346 orderanopinion.pdf

reached an agreement whereby Hoskins retained $1,297 and refunded the rest.

Dissatisfied that they had not received their full security deposit back,

Tenants sued Hoskins, alleging that he had violated both the SMC and RLTA.

Hoskins denied Tenants’ allegations and asserted a counterclaim for breach of

contract and waste. A bench trial was held in December 2021, and the trial court

largely ruled in Hoskins’ favor. The court rejected Tenants’ arguments regarding

various “technical violations” of the SMC and RLTA because Tenants had not
-3-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83734-6-I/4

proved actual damages and/or Hoskins had not acted unlawfully. Regarding

Hoskins’ counterclaim, the court found Tenants liable for $2,346 for repairs,

cleaning, and yard maintenance and $800 ($100 per day) for eight days during

which Hoskins could not rent the unit as a result of the way Tenants had left it.

The trial court then turned to the issue of prevailing party attorney fees. The

court ruled that Hoskins was the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney

fees under the parties’ lease, which states in relevant part, “[l]n the event of

disagreement or litigation regarding the performance of the terms and provisions

of this Agreement by either party hereto, the prevailing party shall be entitled to the

payment of their costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees . . . . ”

Based on this provision, the trial court awarded Hoskins $19,325 for fees incurred

in defense against Tenants’ claims.

The trial court entered judgment in Hoskins’ favor. Tenants appealed, and

Hoskins cross-appealed. Hoskins has since withdrawn his cross-appeal.

II