Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 136 Wash. App. 153 (2006)

Citation: Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 136 Wash. App. 153 (2006)
Parent Document: Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 136 Wash. App. 153 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2006-12-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4941987/council-house-inc-v-hawk/ ↗

Full Text

628 chars

¶11 In its motion seeking voluntary dismissal, Council House stated that fees were not appropriate because “there is no statutory basis for attorney fees.” 11 This assertion is wrong. The plain language of the unlawful detainer statute authorizes fees to the prevailing party. Council House supported its position with the following footnote: “The Defendant recently dismissed her claim for retaliation pursuant to RCW 59.18.250, which would not have provided for fees in any event since Defendant’s lawyers are working pro-bono. Based on the procedural nature of Defendant’s pending motion, there is no other basis for fees.”12

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text