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

1,598 chars
The form order for the temporary restraining order and order to show

cause entered by the trial court had two "check the box" alternatives: "without

posting of a bond by the Plaintiff" and "upon posting of a bond in the amount of

$ by Plaintiff." The trial court here checked the space next to the first

alternative. Neither the court's order granting the preliminary injunction nor its

order authorizing the writ of restitution required a bond. The trial court erred by

not ordering a bond as required by chapter 59.12 RCW and chapter 7.40 RCW.

29 See RCW 4.44.470; Hockley v. Hargitt. 82 Wn.2d 337, 345, 510 P.2d
1123(1973).
30 Evar, Inc. v. Kurbitz, 77 Wn.2d 948, 951, 468 P.2d 677 (1970); Irwin v.
Estes, 77 Wn.2d 285, 286, 461 P.2d 875 (1969).
-12-
             

No. 68727-1-1 (consol. with
No. 68927-4-I)/13

"'[Ejrror is not prejudicial unless, within reasonable probabilities, had the

error not occurred, the outcome of the trial would have been materially

affected.'"31 Feigenbaum demonstrates no prejudice from this error. Therefore,

we do not consider this issue further.

Conversion of the Case from Unlawful Detainer to Ordinary Civil Case

In an unlawful detainer action, "'the court sits as a special statutory

tribunal to summarily decide the issues authorized by statute and not as a court

of general jurisdiction with the power to hear and determine other issues.'"32 Due
to the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings, other claims, such as

counterclaims, are generally not permitted.33 However,