Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,760 chars
parties”); State v. Wenof, 102 N.J. Super. 370, 246 A.2d 59 (1968)), aff’d, 94

Wn.2d 889, 621 P.2d 716 (1980). Our Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth

that sending notice by mail to a party’s last known address may, in certain

situations, satisfy this requirement. See RAP 18.5(a) (citing CR 5(b), (f), (g)); see

also In re Saltis, 25 Wn. App. at 219.

The record supports that the notice herein was sent in a manner

reasonably calculated to reach the Knights. The Knights’ last known address

13 The record contains a declaration from a representative of the Housing Authority

stating that she affixed a copy of the notice to vacate on the door of that rental unit and later,
while at that unit, she personally delivered to Angela Knight a packet of legal documents
pertaining to the superior court proceedings. The record also contains a declaration from an
employee of the Housing Authority’s legal counsel stating that he mailed a copy of the notice of
appeal addressed to the rental unit in question. Our court staff also mailed letters, orders, and
rulings pertaining to this appeal to that address, but they were returned as undelivered.

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/26

was the rental unit in question, and notice by the Housing Authority and by this

court was mailed to that address. Thus, although the absence of actual notice

gives us concern about the Knights’ due process rights, the notice provided

herein appears to have satisfied due process.

The Knights may yet have rights or remedies available to them, including

the vacation of a mandate or vacation of judgment entered upon a vacated

mandate.14 Nonetheless, with the understanding that we do not have clear