[WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Tue Jun 5 05:37:32 PDT 2018

Thank you Howard. This backs up what has been way things are handled here. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: HOWARD HERMAN <hhherman2 at comcast.net>
Date: 6/4/18 6:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Craig, here is the case law and statute.

In Carlstrom, Division One of this court observed, "Show cause hearings are summary proceedings to determine the issue of possession pending a lawsuit." Id. at 788, 990 P.2d 986<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=990+P.2d+986&scd=WA> (emphasis added) (citing Meadow Park, 54 Wash.App. at 375, 773 P.2d 875<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=773+P.2d+875&scd=WA>). The statute allows a landlord to apply for a writ to expeditiously determine who should possess the property while an unlawful detainer action is pending. Meadow Park, 54 Wash.App. at 376, 773 P.2d 875<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=773+P.2d+875&scd=WA>. In fact, since a pendente lite writ issues on summary proceedings, the landlord is typically required to post a bond [3<http://lawriter.net/caselink.aspx?series=P.3d&scd=WA&citationno=109%20P.3d%20422#FN3>] to take possession. RCW 59.18.380. That is because "[a] show cause hearing is not the final determination of the rights of the parties in an unlawful detainer action." Carlstrom, 98 Wash.App. at 788, 990 P.2d 986<http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=990+P.2d+986&scd=WA>.

Howard Herman
Herman Herman & Jolley PS
509 220 5810

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 8:37 AM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Thank you all for your insight.  I know in Snoco, the commissioners have made it pretty clear that they won’t grant a judgment if the tenant has vacated.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 4:14 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Craig, I read the statute differently from the other listserv members.  I have had tenants move out after service of the summons and complaint but before the show cause hearing.  When I informed the judge at the show cause hearing that the T had moved out, the judge basically tossed the file aside and said "next".  Then I pointed out to the judge that while it was no longer necessary to obtain a Writ of Restitution, T still met the definition of being in unlawful detainer because T was in possession of the premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and so the LL was still entitled to a judgement.  The judge frowned but signed the judgement.

RCW 59.12.030 says that the "tenant of real property for a term less than life is guilty of unlawful detainer either: ...
3) When he or she continues in possession in person or by subtenant after a default in the payment of rent, and after notice in writing requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent or the surrender of the detained premises, served (in manner in RCW 59.12.040<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.12.040> provided) in behalf of the person entitled to the rent upon the person owing it, has remained uncomplied with for the period of three days after service thereof. The notice may be served at any time after the rent becomes due."

I would argue that if T stays in the premises for ANY TIME after the 3 day notice has expired (and service of the summons and complaint), then T is "guilty of unlawful detainer."  But, I guess it comes down to what does "continues in possession" mean?  I have successfully argued that LL is still entitled to a judgment because the T is "guilty of unlawful detainer" even though T has vacated the premises.  The section says it's unlawful detainer if T continues in possession after the end of the 3 day period, it doesn't say that T must STAY in the premises past the expiration of the 3 day notice and until the Show Cause Hearing.   No, I do not have case law to back it up but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

________________________________
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> on behalf of Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com<mailto:craig at glgmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:04 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Listmates, I know that when a tenant vacates the property priortothe show cause, the UD action is no longer valid and tje action must be converted to a money due or breach suit if you want a judgment. What I don't know is the cite for why that is true. Anyone know the cite  for this? Also does it only apply to residential or is it the same for commercial? Thanks in advance for your wisdom.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180605/b4aa4368/attachment.html>