Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217 (1996)

Citation
Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217 (1996)
Parent Document
Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1996-10-28

Other Sections in This Document (75)

Full Text

961 chars
Sprincin’s summons sought "to terminate your [Sound’s] tenancy, direct the sheriff to remove you and your belongings from the property, enter a money judgment against you for fair market value of unpaid rent and/or damages for your use of the property, and for court costs and attorneys’ fees.” This unquestionably gave Sound notice of the types of relief which could be granted should it fail to appear. Thus, despite the omission of a claim for double damages (which Sprincin did include in its complaint), the summons substantially complied with the unlawful detainer summons statute. Although the description of damages was slightly misleading — because it limited itself to fair market value of unpaid rent — that misstatement is not so vital as to deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Hence, having properly acquired subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court should have awarded rent and double damages to the extent allowed by statute. 12