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

1,750 chars

that “[they] had seen sewage coming out of a riser lid,” he observed “no signs that this had

occurred, neither in the present nor in the past.” CP at 273. He explained,

If any leakage or sewage did come from the lid, this would be because there was
[a] clog or blockage in the system coming from the house, caused by too much
toilet paper, or the like, being flushed down into the system. This type of system is
not prone to clogging in that fashion other than from misuse and flushing too much
paper or other things down toilets.

CP at 273. Fesenbek also expressed surprise that the previous inspection report had said that the

Tralee property’s septic system “needed floats and a pump,” because the type of septic system at

the property “does not operate utilizing floats at all.” CP at 273.

V. SHOW CAUSE HEARING

The superior court held a show cause hearing on the Egberts’ motion for a writ of restitution

in July 2024. During the hearing, the superior court heard arguments and asked the parties

questions.

A. THE EGBERTS’ ARGUMENTS

The Egberts argued that they had a good faith basis for evicting the Jorgensens. They

pointed to Scott’s sworn declaration that he made the decision in fall 2023 to live at the Tralee

property upon his release from WSH. They also argued that because the Jorgensens were behind

on rent payments, there was a rebuttable presumption under the RLTA that their decision to evict

the Jorgensens was not retaliatory.

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

The Egberts also questioned the veracity of the Jorgensens’ retaliation claim. They argued

that neither they nor Jackson had ever received notice from the county public health department