Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1033320.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1033320.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1033320.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,306 chars

The landlord further contends that RCW 59.18.365(3) cannot require a show cause

hearing because such hearings are not mandatory. RCW 59.18.370 states that when an

unlawful detainer action is filed, a landlord “may apply to the superior court . . . for an

order directing the defendant to appear and show cause” why a writ of restitution should

not be issued. (Emphasis added.) The tenant explains that they are “not arguing that a

show cause hearing is mandatory in all cases and does not dispute that landlords may

obtain default judgments under CR 55 when a tenant has failed to appear.” Appellant’s

Reply Br. at 16; see SPR 98.24W(2) (indigent tenants who receive default judgments

may move for appointment of an attorney). RCW 59.18.365 contemplates .370’s

permissive structure.

Next, the landlord points out that subsection (1) of RCW 59.18.365 directs

defendants to “appear and answer” the complaint within the time designated. Subsection

(1) states that a summons must “notify the defendant to appear and answer.” But, the

tenant notes, the subsection does not “impose any specific obligation on a tenant as to

when to answer or what form an answer must take.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 14 n.2. 4

Nothing in subsection (3) alerts a defendant that they must provide notice of appearance