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

1,757 chars

Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Order for Writ of Restitution” that appeared to be proposed by

the Egberts’ attorney. CP at 281-85 (Writ of Restitution). The form included many line edits and

strikeouts, but in the end, it largely mirrored the superior court’s oral ruling by focusing on issuing

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

the Writ of Restitution and awarding related fees and costs. The order authorized the issuance of

the Writ and listed the adjusted attorney fee amount of $10,930 and a costs amount of $1,912 and

reserved on issues such as the principal judgment amount, damages, and the amount of any

outstanding and owed rent.

But the order included some residual additional findings in a pre-printed, check-the-box

type format. For example, finding 2.3 had boxes checked that stated that the Jorgensens had been

issued both a 30-day notice to vacate and a 90-day notice to vacate. Other checked boxes in the

finding included the following:

Although the requisite time has elapsed since service of said Notice(s),
Defendant(s) has/have not: [ X ] paid the past due rent, [ ] conformed to the
obligations of tenancy, [ X ] surrendered possession of the premises, and is/are
now unlawfully detaining the premises.

CP at 282.

The Jorgensens appeal.

ANALYSIS

I. UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEDURE

Unlawful detainer actions are statutorily created proceedings that are governed by chapters

59.12 and 59.18 RCW. Garrand v. Cornett, 31 Wn. App. 2d 428, 437, 550 P.3d 64 (2024). They

provide “an expedited means to resolve competing claims of possession between landlords and

tenants.” Id. The scope of the proceedings is “narrow” and “limited to the question of possession