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

1,789 chars

had no other options, the Jorgensens urged the superior court to consider the evidence that undercut

this claim.

The Jorgensens then pointed to Scott’s admission in his mental health evaluation that he

intended to return to a different residence, not the Tralee property. However, the superior court

interrupted and questioned whether Scott living in this previous residence was actually a viable

option.

[Jorgensens’ Counsel]: First, there’s the admission by Mr. Egbert in another
proceeding that he actually intended to return to his residence that he was in before
he was incarcerated. There is the—
[Superior Court]: Isn’t that the one that was burned down?
[Jorgensens’ Counsel]: That happened weeks ago. That happened on June 6th, the
fire.
[Superior Court]: The burning of his residence?
[Jorgensens’ Counsel]: Yes.

VRP (July 8, 2024) at 16-17.4

In addition to challenging the validity of the Egberts’ alleged basis for evicting them, the

Jorgensens also argued that there was ample evidence to support their theory that the Egberts’

primary motive for evicting them was retaliation. They highlighted that the timing of the Egberts’

90-day notice was only two weeks after the demand letter from the Jorgensens’ attorney. They

also contended that Jackson’s harassment of them supported their retaliation claim.

The Jorgensens further challenged the claim that Jackson and Scott had never received the

demand letter or the notices from the county by pointing to the evidence that the P.O. Box on the

letter and notices was registered to the Egberts.

4
The record does not readily show that any party followed up on the superior court’s question with
additional information or argument.

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.