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

1,767 chars

The parties’ dispute is not new. The appropriate standard of appellate review for show

cause hearings has been debated among the divisions of the Court of Appeals. The two cases that

appear to be at the center of this dispute are Tedford v. Guy, 13 Wn. App. 2d 1, 462 P.3d 869

(2020) and Kiemle & Haygood Company v. Daniels, 26 Wn. App. 2d 199, 528 P.3d 834 (2023).

The two cases emphasize different portions of the RLTA’s language and come to different

conclusions.

In Tedford, the court highlighted the clause “[i]f it appears to the court that there is a

substantial issue of material fact” from RCW 59.18.380 and interpreted the language to mean that

“the [superior] court has the discretion to determine if trial is necessary.” 13 Wn. App. 2d at 16

(emphasis added) (first alteration in original). This discretionary decision, according to Tedford,

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

means that an abuse of discretion standard is the appropriate standard to review “a [court’s]

decision to strike a trial date in an unlawful detainer action.” Id.

The Kiemle court disagreed with Tedford. 26 Wn. App. 2d at 218-219. There, the court

focused on the language “genuine issue of material fact” used in RCW 59.18.380 and reasoned

that this “is nearly the identical language that governs summary judgment.” Id. at 218. “Thus, it

appears something close to de novo review should apply, at least when a tenant denies the

landlord’s grounds for eviction or raises an affirmative defense.” Id. at 218-19.

We are hesitant to adopt the reasonings of either the Tedford or Kiemle courts. Neither

opinion clearly acknowledges the differences in the statute’s language when it discusses the first