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

1,783 chars
Brandy told her that Ron Dickerson would call her back. Ms. Goodeill informed Brandy

that she knew her rights as a tenant, and that she was entitled to her deposit refund within

5
             

No. 32442-7-II1
Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate

14 days of moving out. Brandy told Ms. Goodeill that landlords are only required to

provide an estimate of charges within 14 days.

Neither Mr. Dickerson nor anyone from Madison returned Ms. Goodeill's

September 19 call. Four days later, Ms. Goodeill filed suit against Madison in the small

claims court division of district court, seeking $1,600.00, which represented

her $800.00 security deposit plus a penalty equal to her security deposit, as pennitted by

RCW 59.18.280.

On October 9-43 days after the Goodeills vacated their rental and 36 days after

the Goodeills returned their last two keys to Madison-Madison sent the Goodeills the

following full and specific statement as contemplated by RCW 59.18.280: .

1561 vacancy cleaning $112.50
6684 cleaned 7 blinds & 1 shade $89.05 1
Avista Util-gas (tenant to reimb owner) $22.49
Avista Util-elec (tenant to reimb owner) $29.44
City Util-refuse 8/31 (tenant to reimb owner) $5.79
City Util-sewer 8/31 (tenant to reimb owner) $36.74
City Util-water 8/31 (tenant to reimb owner) $46.29
1592 repairs: replaced bulbs, cleaned up yard debris,
pulled gold coin out of vent in entry way, checked all
smoke detectors, repaired back door screen, rehung
laundry room bi-fold doors (50% of 135.69 tenant exp) $67.85
Admin Fee Re Inv1561 $11.25
Admin Fee Re inv6684 $8.91

I Madison charged the Goodeills roughly 65 percent of the Action Tech bill,
presumably acknowledging that the remaining portion was nonnal wear and tear.