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

1,797 chars

If it appears to the court . . . that there is a genuine issue of a material fact
pertaining to a legal or equitable defense or set-off raised in the [tenant]’s answer,
the court shall grant or deny so much of [landlord]’s other relief sought and so much
of [tenant]’s defenses or set-off claimed, as may be proper.

Id. (emphasis added).7 Unlike step one, for step two, the statute requires that the superior court

consider “other relief” with a more defined lens by evaluating whether there are any substantial or

genuine issues of material fact that require a trial.

7
For example, “[a] tenant’s testimony specifically disputing the breach of the lease alleged by the
landlord creates issues of material fact warranting trial.” Webster, 18 Wn. App. 2d at 254.

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The parties spend much of their briefing disputing the proper standard of appellate review

for a superior court’s decision following a show cause hearing.

The Egberts contend that an abuse of discretion standard should be applied to the superior

court’s decision of whether trial is necessary. The Egberts also contend that the superior court’s

findings of fact should be reviewed for substantial evidence.

In contrast, the Jorgensens argue that the appropriate standard of a review is de novo. They

contend that during a show cause hearing the superior court is “only supposed to review the

evidence and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed,”—it is not supposed to

weigh evidence or enter factual findings like at a bench trial. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 15-16.

Thus, according to the Jorgensens, the abuse of discretion and substantial evidence standards are

inappropriate.