Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52222-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,165 charsbased on their request to install smoke detectors in the rental house and granted Tedford’s motion for a writ and struck the trial date as there were no remaining material issues of fact in dispute for trial. On appeal, Guy and Mattler argue that the superior court erred because (1) the commissioner conducted an improper show cause hearing when she limited Guy’s testimony and struck the trial date because a trial was necessary on their affirmative defense of retaliation and (2) For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 52222-5-II Tedford retaliated against them by moving for a writ of restitution after they requested that smoke detectors be installed. We hold that the superior court properly denied the motion to revise, awarded additional attorney fees and costs to Tedford, and entered judgments. Thus, we affirm the superior court’s orders and judgments. FACTS I. LEASE AGREEMENT Tedford owns and rents a house in Olympia. Tedford agreed with Mattler, via text messages, that Mattler and Guy could rent the house. On March 7, 2018, the following text exchange occurred between Tedford and Mattler: