DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 15

Citation
§ 15
Parent Document
Princeton Property Management, Inc., Resp V. Kathleen Allen, Apps (2024)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2024-06-11
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9529574/princeton-property-management-i... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (213)

Full Text

617 chars 
4
  Princeton does not raise RAP 2.5(a). It appears from the record below that the Allens did not
make their RCW 59.18.230(1)(b) argument to the superior court in nearly the same detail as they
do here. Regardless of whether each of their arguments were argued sufficiently to preserve them
for appeal, RAP 2.5(a) is discretionary. See Fireside Bank v. Askins, 195 Wn.2d 365, 374, 460
P.3d 157 (2020). Here, we exercise our discretion to review the Allens’ arguments both because
Princeton fails to raise RAP 2.5(a) and because of the public interest in construing newly enacted
provisions of RLTA. 10
No. 58183-3-II