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

1,726 chars

step, determining the right of possession, and the second step, determining “other relief.” Instead,

both decisions appear to blend the two steps into a single determination. Further, both courts end

their analysis after considering only small portions of the language of RCW 59.18.380 without

reconciling their position with the unique nature of unlawful detainer procedures and the practical

realities of show cause hearings.

We especially question Kiemle’s creation of a de novo standard of review for superior court

decisions made in show cause hearings. Although Kiemle accurately recognizes that the legislature

mirrored the language of a summary judgment standard in some portions of RCW 59.18.380, it

ignores other aspects of the statute and the general attributes of the unlawful detainer statutory

scheme. Indeed, this statutory scheme places unique responsibilities on the superior court at show

cause hearings. For example, as noted above, the statute requires the superior court to “examine

the parties and witnesses orally.” RCW 59.18.380. Without question, no similar procedure occurs

at a summary judgment hearing.

23
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

Moreover, the entire scheme is designed for expedited resolutions, in part, to reduce costs

for participants. See Wilson v. Daniels, 31 Wn.2d 633, 643-44, 198 P.2d 496 (1948). These

interests force superior courts to exercise significant discretion, not only in the oral examination

of the parties and witnesses, but also in the subsequent decision of whether a full trial, and the

resulting delay, are necessary. To inform this decision, the superior courts must engage directly