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
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,755 charsDespite the notice, the Jorgensens continued to occupy the property. In April 2024, the Egberts served the Jorgensens with a complaint and summons for unlawful detainer based on the 3 On December 28, the Egberts also served the Jorgensens a 30-day notice to vacate due to their overdue rental payments. Because, as shown below, the superior court based its decision solely on the 90-day notice, this notice is not part of this appeal. 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 60448-5-II Jorgensens failure to comply with the eviction notice. The Egberts promptly moved for a show cause hearing. III. THE JORGENSENS’ RETALIATION CLAIM In their answer, the Jorgensens raised a retaliation defense. The Jorgensens argued that the Egberts’ claimed basis for terminating their lease, that Scott intended to move into the Tralee property after his release from WSH, “was issued as pretext to retaliate against [the Jorgensens’] lawful demands to repair the septic system that was a public health hazard and nuisance.” CP at 75. The Jorgensens contended that Scott owned six other properties in Shelton, and thus he had no good faith intention or reason to reside at the Tralee property. The Jorgensens also asserted that in a September 2023 mental health evaluation from WSH, Scott had represented that following his release from WSH, he intended to return to a different property, specifically his previous home in Shelton where he had been living prior to his incarceration. A. DECLARATION FROM HAILEY JORGENSEN Hailey Jorgensen submitted two declarations in support of the retaliation claim. Hailey admitted that in December 2021, she and her husband had fallen behind on their rent. She stated