[WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Tue Jun 5 08:51:35 PDT 2018

I haven't been following this thread, but this new case seems to be 
on-topic.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/351378_pub.pdf

Kary L. Krismer
John L. Scott/KMS Renton
206 723-2148

On 6/4/2018 4:49 PM, HOWARD HERMAN wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180605/0e14496b/attachment.html>