Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/841190.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
Full Text
863 chars16 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 84119-0-I/17 three-day pay or vacate notice when lease provided for 10 days); Cmty. Invs., Ltd., 36 Wn. App. at 37-38 (landlord provided two conflicting notices, one providing for 10 days to pay or vacate, and the other providing for the 20 days required by the lease). Here, the conflicting notices provided by Sherwood Auburn were misleading and equivocal and failed to adequately, precisely, and correctly inform the tenants of the rights to which they were entitled. 11 Because Pinzon and Mendez were not afforded clear and accurate notice, the superior court was without the authority to issue a writ of restitution or enter judgment against them. 12 Accordingly, we reverse the superior court’s order and remand for dismissal of the unlawful detainer action. 13