Mathew Howard, V. James Pinkerton (2023)

Citation: Mathew Howard, V. James Pinkerton (2023)
Parent Document: Mathew Howard, V. James Pinkerton (2023)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2023-05-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9440169/mathew-howard-v-james-pinkerton/ ↗

Full Text

1,712 chars

5
Pinkerton also argues that the superior court erred by reasoning that denying the writ of
restitution would be an absurd result. Specifically, Pinkerton contends that, because other methods
for evicting Pinkerton or terminating Pinkerton’s tenancy might have been available to Howard
and Forland, the superior court erred by finding that Pinkerton could hold up Howard and Forland
from using their new home. To advance his argument, Pinkerton argues that Howard and Forland
could have ended the tenancy had they issued notices under other specific subsections of RCW
59.18.650(2). However, this case only concerns the notice that Howard and Forland issued under
RCW 59.18.650(2)(d). We do not issue advisory opinions. Lewis County v. State, 178 Wn. App.
431, 437, 315 P.3d 550 (2013), review denied, 180 Wn.2d 1010 (2014). Additionally, we review
issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at 761. Therefore, we do not
address Pinkerton’s arguments regarding other statutory causes for eviction or termination of
tenancy that Howard and Forland hypothetically could have pursued.
6
Pinkerton also argues that the superior court erred by granting the writ of restitution without
either (1) entering judgment for either party or (2) ordering Howard and Forland to post bond and
setting the case for trial. Because we reverse the superior court’s order granting the writ of
restitution and remand for dismissal based on the superior court’s incorrect interpretation of RCW
59.18.650(2)(d), we do not address Pinkerton’s other argument for reversal and dismissal.

Other Sections in This Document (155)

Full Text