<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div><font face="sans-serif">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.</font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Douglas W. Scott" <doug@davisscottlaw.com> </div><div>Date: 6/6/18 8:04 AM (GMT-08:00) </div><div>To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment </div><div><br></div></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Douglas W. Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Law Offices of Douglas W. Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">Windermere Building<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext">1810 15th Place NW, Suite 203<br>
Issaquah, Washington, 98027<br>
V. 425.392.8550<br>
F. 425-392-2829 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:windowtext"><a href="http://www.davisscottlaw.com/">www.davisscottlaw.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>HOWARD HERMAN<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Kary, thank you so much!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Howard Herman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Herman Herman and Jolley PS<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">509 220 5810<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kary Krismer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 5, 2018 8:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>I haven't been following this thread, but this new case seems to be on-topic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/351378_pub.pdf">http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/351378_pub.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Kary L. Krismer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>John L. Scott/KMS Renton <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>206 723-2148<o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6/4/2018 4:49 PM, HOWARD HERMAN wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Craig, here is the case law and statute.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">In
<i>Carlstrom,</i> Division One of this court observed, "Show cause hearings are summary proceedings to determine the issue of possession
<i>pending</i> a lawsuit." <i>Id.</i> at 788, </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=990+P.2d+986&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none">990
P.2d 986</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> (emphasis added) (citing
<i>Meadow Park,</i> 54 Wash.App. at 375, </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=773+P.2d+875&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none">773 P.2d
875</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">). 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.
<i>Meadow Park,</i> 54 Wash.App. at 376, </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=773+P.2d+875&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none">773 P.2d
875</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">. In fact, since a pendente lite writ issues on summary proceedings, the landlord is typically required to post a bond
<sup>[<a href="http://lawriter.net/caselink.aspx?series=P.3d&scd=WA&citationno=109%20P.3d%20422#FN3"><span style="color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none">3</span></a><a name="ftn.FN3"></a>]</sup> 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."
<i>Carlstrom,</i> 98 Wash.App. at 788, </span><a href="http://lawriter.net/getCitState.aspx?series=P.2d&citationno=990+P.2d+986&scd=WA" target="_self"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#1E3C73;text-decoration:none">990 P.2d
986</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Howard Herman</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Herman Herman & Jolley PS</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">509 220 5810</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> [<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Craig Gourley<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 4, 2018 8:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
<wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Neumiller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 1, 2018 4:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Real Property Listserv <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">
<wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>RCW 59.12.030 says that the "<span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">tenant of real property for a term less than life is guilty of unlawful detainer either: ...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">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 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=59.12.040"><b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#7DAB8A">59.12.040</span></b></a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""> 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."</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr size="3" width="98%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">
wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com</a>> on behalf of Craig Gourley <<a href="mailto:craig@glgmail.com">craig@glgmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 1, 2018 3:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com">wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] unlawful detainer judgment<span style="font-size:12.0pt">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="x_composer_signature">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#575757">Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>WSBARP mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com">WSBARP@lists.wsbarppt.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body></html>