Counsel: I have some brief questions for Mr. Guy.
Court: Okay. And is that about the retaliation issue?
Counsel: It’s about the NSF checks, which goes to the defense to the retaliation
issue.
Court: Okay. I’m not going to find that relevant.
Counsel: Okay.
CP at 282. Defense counsel made no offer of proof of Guy’s proffered testimony, and he did not
argue that the proffered testimony was, in fact, relevant.
On the retaliation defense, the commissioner stated,
There’s been an allegation that this lease was terminated because there was
something said about an absence of smoke detectors. I’ve read the evidence on
that. It was a casual conversation. There was never a demand to replace the smoke
detector, the demand of sort which might lead the court to find that it was a
retaliatory eviction.
CP at 50.
The commissioner granted a writ of restitution, reserved judgment, and struck the trial date.
The commissioner issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered a judgment
in favor of Tedford, including attorney fees and costs totaling $4,962.
The commissioner entered the following conclusion of law:
10. Further, the Court rejects [Guy’s and Mattler’s] argument that [Tedford’s]
Notice of Termination was a retaliatory act in violation of RCW 59.18.240. The
Court specifically rules that, although [Guy and Mattler] informed [Tedford] about
the absence of smoke detectors in the house and discussed their absence with
[Tedford], the Defendants never formally demanded that [Tedford] install smoke
detectors and therefore [Tedford] was not retaliating against Defendants for the
Defendants’ assertion of any right under RCW 59.18, as required for a successful
defense of retaliatory eviction.
CP at 300-01.