Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 324427.pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 324427.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,764 chars
9/1/2013 RENT INCOME-SEPTEMBER 2013 (3DAYS) $75.00
9/16/2013 ESTIMATED: CITY UTIL-OVERAGES $75.00
9/13/2013 ESTIMATED: WINDOWS COVERING CLNG $150.00
9/13/2013 ESTIMATED: GENERAL HOUSE CLEANING $350.00
9/13/2013 ESTIMATED: LAWN CARE-DRY & WEEDS $150.00
9/13/2013 ESTIMATED: MAINTIDEBRIS REMOVAL $100.00

PI. ' sEx. 1 at 5. The notice further stated:

4
             

No. 32442-7-111
Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate

Once all estimated costs have been determined, a final accounting will be
forwarded to you. We will verify againt [sic] move-in reported condition
and move-out condition report and account for less normal wear & tear.
Please provide confirmation that utilities have been paid through 06/30/13 and
your account will be adjusted accordingly.

Pl.'s Ex. 1 at 4 (emphasis in original).

On September 18, Ms. Goodeill called Madison to dispute the estimated charges.

She spoke with an associate named Kirsten, who said that Madison typically sends a high

estimate "so tenants would not be surprised" by the final statement. Clerk's Papers (CP)

at 3. Kirsten said she had no receipts or documentation to support Madison's estimate,

and urged Ms. Goodeill to "wait until the final statement," which could take between two

to four additional weeks. CP at 3. Ms. Goodeill asked if it would be possible to return to

the property and go over the estimated charges and was told that the property had already

been occupied by new renters. Kirsten took Ms. Goodeill's contact information and told

her someone would call her.

On September 19, Ms. Goodeill called Madison's office again, insisting that she

speak with someone who could explain the estimated charges to her. An associate named