immaterial and cured, and that the judgment was not provided to the Allens’ attorney.
The superior court held a hearing on the Allens’ motion to vacate. At the hearing, the
Allens complained that they were unaware of the entry of the judgment. And because they were
unaware of the entry of the judgment and did not know the amount of the judgment, the Allens
contended that they were prevented from reinstating their tenancy under RLTA. The Allens also
asserted that Princeton may have breached its own obligations under the agreement, but they did
not specify how. Following argument, the superior court vacated the judgment on procedural
grounds and continued the stay of the writ of restitution until another hearing could be held to hear
additional testimony about any other breaches of the settlement agreement.3
In April, the superior court held a third hearing to give the Allens the opportunity to offer
testimony. At the hearing, the Allens offered testimony that Princeton breached the settlement
agreement because it failed to make repairs that it agreed to make. Following the testimony, the
2
The order on show cause, writ of restitution, and judgment from this hearing are not in our record.
3
We do not have any written order from the superior court regarding this hearing in our record.
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 58183-3-II
superior court determined again that the Allens, not Princeton, were in breach and, as provided in
the agreement, granted Princeton’s request for a writ of restitution.
Days before the writ was to be executed, the Allens filed two more motions—a motion to
reinstate the tenancy and a motion to shorten time. In their motion to reinstate the tenancy, the