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

1,767 chars

Both the narrowness of the superior court’s order and the specific basis for the eviction are

critical to this conclusion. First, as for the narrowness of the order, although the order came in the

8
The Egberts argue that because the Jorgensens were behind on rent, there can be no presumption
of retaliation and, in fact, the Egberts should receive a rebuttable presumption that their eviction
action is not retaliatory. The Jorgensens respond that there remains a dispute as to whether they
owed the Egberts rent and that “the court never made a factual determination regarding whether
rent was owing.” Br. of Appellants at 21-22.

26
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

form of a pre-printed order with checkboxes, the superior court’s decision was limited essentially

to the right of immediate possession. It authorized the issuance of the Writ of Restitution and

awarded related fees and costs, but it expressly reserved its judgment on everything else, including

the contested issue of outstanding rent. Considering that the superior court’s order was limited to

immediate possession and essentially reserved on “other relief,” only the first step of RCW

59.18.380 is relevant to this appeal. Thus, it needed to only appear to the superior court that the

Egberts had the right to immediately possess the property.

Second, as for the specific basis for the eviction, the eviction was based on RCW

59.18.650(2)(d) for owners to occupy the property as a primary resident, i.e., the property is where

Scott says he wants to reside. Unlike other potential grounds for eviction, this basis would not

generally be subject to competing positions and evidence from both parties. For example, when a