Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 837346 orderanopinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 837346 orderanopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/837346%20orderanopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,227 chars

waste, the trial court found in favor of Hoskins and awarded three distinct

categories of damages: (1) $1,300 paid by Hoskins to the gardener to clean up the

yard, (2) $800 ($100 per day) for eight days during which Hoskins could not rent

the unit as a result of the way Tenants had left it, and (3) $746.65 for repair costs

relating to patching, paint, a refrigerator shelf, and various other repairs. Tenants

contend that each of these awards is erroneous. We agree in part and disagree in

part as follows.

Starting with the gardener fees, Tenants argue that the trial court erred

when it allowed Hoskins to argue at trial that he should recover $1,300 for

landscaping when the court had already determined in response to their summary

judgment motion that “Hoskins had already agreed to only charge $1,000.” A trial

court, however, is not bound by its summary judgment rulings and can revise those

rulings “any time before entry of final judgment.” Washburn v. Beatt Equip. Co.,

120 Wn.2d 246, 300, 840 P.2d 860 (1992). Additionally, substantial evidence,

including testimony and photographs of the yard, supports the trial court’s award

of $1,300 for this item. Tenants’ contrary arguments are without merit.