Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 687271.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 687271.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,794 chars
summary means of resolving leased property disputes. Feigenbaum admits

receiving the summons and complaint by mail on December 9. The return date

for the show cause hearing was December 17. Thus, Hall served Feigenbaum

not less than 7 days before the summons's return date. Feigenbaum received

sufficient notice of the return date to respond to the summons and complaint.

We conclude that statutory process was proper and thus that the trial court

properly exercised its jurisdiction.

The Requirement of an Injunction Bond

On April 22, 2011, the court denied Feigenbaum's motions to dismiss and

to require the court to set a bond for the preliminary injunction and a bond for the

writ of restitution. Feigenbaum assigns error to the court's issuance of the

injunction and writ without requiring a bond.

within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other
paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by
mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.
28 Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 374.
-11-
             

No. 68727-1-1 (consol. with
No. 68927-4-I)/12

RCW 7.40.080 states, "No injunction or restraining order shall be granted

until the party asking it shall enter into a bond, in such a sum as shall be fixed by

the court or judge granting the order." The Washington State Supreme Court has

held that while the amount of a bond for an injunction under RCW 7.40.080 is

within the discretion of the trial court,29 the requirement of an injunction bond is

mandatory.30

Similarly, RCW 59.12.090 requires that before a writ of restitution is issued

prior to judgment, the plaintiff "shall execute to the defendant and file in court a

bond in such sum as the court or judge may order."