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

435 chars
because the tenants voluntarily vacated the premises before trial, the trial court had the authority to fashion a method to convert the action into a general proceeding. But Sound did not relinquish possession. Instead, Sprincin moved for summary judgment, securing a writ of restitution. Sound vacated after the court issued its writ, although before the Sheriff returned it. Because Sound disputed Sprincin’s right to possession, *69