[WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Wed Jun 6 09:26:47 PDT 2018

Point well taken.  However, I ask in return that you do not accept landlord clients who undertake an eviction on their own, screw everything up, and then bring their pile of paper to you to try to fix up and go forward on a wing and a prayer.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------From: "Douglas W. Scott" <doug at davisscottlaw.com> Date: 6/6/18  8:04 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment 

Howard,  I do have one request when you represent pro bono tenants:  please screen them so as not to represent a tenant who purposely goes from landlord to landlord and fails to pay rent awaiting the landlord
 to eventually evict them and then gets a pro bono lawyer to locate a technicality that sends the landlord back to court multiple times, plus expenses to the Sheriff, and costs the landlord (who may be a working class guy with one rental unit) thousands of
 dollars. Then the tenant leaves the place a complete mess. 

Douglas W. Scott
Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott
Windermere Building
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203

Issaquah, Washington, 98027

V.  425.392.8550

F.  425-392-2829 
www.davisscottlaw.com

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com]
On Behalf Of HOWARD HERMAN

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:43 PM

To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'

Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

Kary, thank you so much!

This is a beautiful case and right here in my own back yard, Spokane WA, Division III. My practice is primarily limited to pro bono defense of unlawful detainer cases and this case is a primer for anyone representing
 either the landlord or the tenant. I am familiar with many of the cases cited in the opinion, and to have so many  issues so clearly and decisively decided in one case is remarkable. At least half of the cases I have handled in the last 20 years could have
 been won with this case as authority. Landlords, beware of the volunteer that comes to court with one case.

Howard Herman
Herman Herman and Jolley PS
509 220 5810

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com]
On Behalf Of Kary Krismer

Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 8:52 AM

To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com

Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment

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 (emphasis added) (citing
Meadow Park, 54 Wash.App. at 375, 773 P.2d
 875). 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. In fact, since a pendente lite writ issues on summary proceedings, the landlord is typically required to post a bond
[3] 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.

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 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 <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> on behalf of Craig Gourley <craig at glgmail.com>

Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:04 PM

To: 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/20180606/58c01e6f/attachment.html>