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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850318.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,587 chars

answers to those questions, we reverse and remand this matter to the superior

court for the reasons discussed herein.15, 16

Reversed and remanded.

14 No evidence in the record suggests that the Housing Authority’s representations

regarding service of process are inaccurate. However, if the Knights can sustain an assertion of
prejudice arising therefrom, then the Knights “may move in the appellate court for appropriate
relief.” RAP 5.4(b). In such a scenario, it is unclear what rights the Knights might retain, whether
our appellate mandate would be effective, how much time they might have to challenge such a
mandate, and whether a superior court could enter effective monetary judgment against them.
15 We do not award sanctions or appellate costs. In reversing and remanding this matter,

we leave it to the serenity of the superior court as to whether it wishes to do so on remand,
should any such request be made.
16 We recognize that our decision today conflicts with the earlier Division II opinion

discussed herein. We also recognize that, as the prevailing party, the Housing Authority has no
motivation to seek review by our Supreme Court. Similarly, as the Knights have not appeared,
they will most assuredly not be the source of a petition for review. And, finally, Amicus is not a
party and thus is not an “aggrieved party.” This issue may escape further review, notwithstanding
its eligibility for such review. See RAP 13.3(a)(1), 13.4(a), (b)(2).

26
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/27

WE CONCUR: