Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2060448-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,766 chars

DIVISION II
SCOTT EGBERT, JANELLE EGBERT, No. 60448-5-II

Respondent,

v. ORDER AMENDING OPINION
TO CORRECT CAPTION
RICHARD JORGENSEN, HAILY
JORGENSEN, and ALL OTHER
RESIDENTS, and OCCUPANTS,

Appellants
.

The Court on its own motion amends the published opinion in part filed on

December 9, 2025, to correct the caption to PUBLISHED OPINION. No other portion of the

opinion is amended. Accordingly, it is

SO ORDERED.

PANEL: Jj. MAXA, LEE, PRICE

FOR THE COURT:

______________________________
PRICE, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two

December 9, 2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II
SCOTT EGBERT, JANELLE EGBERT, No. 60448-5-II

Respondents,

v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RICHARD JORGENSEN, HAILY
JORGENSEN, and ALL OTHER RESIDENTS,
and OCCUPANTS,

Appellants.

PRICE, J. — The Jorgensens were evicted when their landlords, the Egberts, gave them

notice that Scott Egbert wanted to move into the residence. Following a show cause hearing, the

superior court granted a writ of restitution that restored possession of the property to the Egberts.

The Jorgensens appeal, claiming that the eviction was the result of retaliation for their complaints

about the property, including alleged issues with the septic system. Both parties also raise

numerous issues beyond the issuance of the “Writ of Restitution,”1 such as whether the Jorgensens

owed the Egberts rent or whether the Egberts neglected to fix the septic issues. In addition, the

parties disagree on the appropriate standard of review for the superior court’s decision following

the show cause hearing. The Jorgensens contend that we should apply a de novo standard of