Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 147 P.3d 1305 (2006)

Citation
Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 147 P.3d 1305 (2006)
Parent Document
Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 147 P.3d 1305 (2006)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2006-12-11

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text

638 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 *1308 nature of Defendant's pending motion, there is no other basis for fees."[12]