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

1,726 chars

or the demand letter from the Jorgensens’ attorney about the septic problems. Additionally, the

Egberts argued that the Jorgensens’ claims regarding the septic problems were “a bit questionable”

based on Fesenbek’s declaration that suggested that the Tralee property had no on-going problems

and that any issues were likely due to the Jorgensens’ misuse. Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) (July

8, 2024) at 10.

The Egberts also argued that the superior court should issue the Writ of Restitution and

rule in favor of the Egberts at the show cause hearing without setting the matter for trial. They

argued that although the RLTA required the superior court to determine whether genuine issues of

material fact existed that necessitated trial, the superior court should weigh the evidence, unlike

what typically occurs at summary judgment. They contended,

It’s not a summary judgment standard. This case—this Court does have the power
to weigh evidence and make a ruling. And in this case you’ve got—you go to trial
on this and there’s really nothing new that’s going to pop up.

VRP (July 8, 2024) at 27.

B. THE JORGENSENS’ ARGUMENTS

The Jorgensens also encouraged the superior court to “weigh the veracity of the pleadings.”

VRP (July 8, 2024) at 16. The Jorgensens asked the superior court to reject the notion that “the

exclusive remedy” in this case would be for the Jorgensens to vacate the Tralee property and for

the parties to “wait to see” if Scott actually moved into the property within 60 days. VRP (July 8,

2024) at 16. Instead of assuming that Scott actually desired to move into the Tralee property and

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II