materials, we review the record de novo.3 Interpretation of a statute presents a
question of law that we review de novo.4 The adequacy of a notice terminating
tenancy presents a mixed question of law and fact that we also review de novo.5
2 SMC 22.206.160(C).
3 Indigo Real Estate Servs.. Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wn. App. 412, 417,
280 P.3d 506 (2012).
* Ruvalcaba v. Kwana Ho Baek, 175 Wn.2d 1, 6, 282 P.3d 1083 (2012).
5 Hall v. Feiaenbaum, 178 Wn. App. 811, 819, 319 P.3d 61, review denied,
180 Wn.2d 1018 (2014); RCW 59.12.030.
-3-
NO. 72611-1-1/4
ANALYSIS
The Tenants assert two reasons why the trial court should have dismissed
the Landlords' complaint or conducted a trial before evicting them: the Landlords
did not properly serve the termination notice and the notice did not state sufficient
facts in support of the reason for termination. The Tenants also claim that the
trial court should not have awarded the Landlords back rent because the
Landlords refused to accept payment offered after service of the termination
notice. We disagree with each of the Tenants' assertions.
A statutory unlawful detainer action provides a summary process for
resolving a dispute between a landlord and a tenant about the right to possession
of leased property.6 At the beginning of this action or anytime later in the
proceedings, the landlord may ask the court for a writ of restitution restoring to it
possession of the property.7 For residential property, a landlord who wants a writ
of restitution must schedule a show cause hearing.8 At the show cause hearing,
the court decides if the landlord has shown that no substantial issue of material