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

1,776 chars

No. 60448-5-II

C. SUPERIOR COURT’S DECISION TO ISSUE A WRIT OF RESTITUTION

After hearing arguments and asking both parties questions, the superior court granted the

Writ of Restitution, but reserved ruling on all other issues, including any outstanding rent. The

superior court first explained that it was viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the tenants,

so it would assume that the Egberts or Jackson (as Scott’s power of attorney) had received the

Jorgensens’ demand letter alleging that the Egberts were obligated to fix the septic system.

However, even assuming the receipt of the demand letter, the superior court determined

that it was not necessary for the case to proceed to a trial on the issue of immediate possession.

The superior court focused on the basis for the eviction—that Scott was going to live at the

residence—and reasoned,

[W]e have a showing from the [Egberts]—and I would agree with the [Egberts’]
counsel that the showing is probably not going to be any different than the Court
would ever see at the time of trial. The [Egberts] are in control of the information
that they would be presenting. They presented their case well as to, yes, I have all
sorts of places, but these are the reasons why I want to live in this one place.
And so even if it were in a presumptive world, I think that they have defeated the
issue and presented evidence that supports his desire to live in the residence, and
the 90-day notice would be appropriate.
....
I believe that the [Egberts] ha[ve] provided the Court with sufficient information
for the Court to make a decision today that the 90-day notice was appropriate, that
the 90-day notice was effective, and that the Writ of Restitution is appropriate
today.

VRP (July 8, 2024) at 31-32.