Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Full Text
1,724 charsAppellants, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. PUBLISH OPINION TAG REALTY, LLC, Respondent, and 1021 N 29TH STREET, LCC, Defendant. Non-parties, Northwest Justice Project, King County Bar Association Housing Justice Project, Kitsap Legal Aid Services, and Sound Legal Aid, having filed a motion to publish opinion, and the panel having considered the motion, and finding that the opinion dated November 17, 2025 will be of precedential value; now, therefore it is hereby ORDERED that the unpublished opinion filed November 17, 2025 shall be published. FOR THE COURT: For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CAITLIN CROMAR and DAMON CROMAR, No. 87780-1-I Appellants, DIVISION ONE v. PUBLISHED OPINION TAG REALTY, LLC, Respondent, and 1021 N 29TH STREET, LCC, Defendant. COBURN, J. —Caitlin and Damon Cromar successfully obtained a judgment against TAG Realty, LLC (TAG Realty) for its unlawful withholding of their security deposit in violation of Washington’s Residential Landlord Tenant Act (RLTA), chapter 59.18 RCW. The trial court granted the Cromars’ motion for attorney fees under RCW 59.18.280(2). The Cromars appeal the trial court’s attorney fee order, arguing that the court abused its discretion by significantly reducing their requested fee amount without conducting a proper lodestar analysis. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to determine an attorney fee award consistent with this opinion. FACTS The Cromars married in September 2022. That same month they renewed a one- For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 87780-1-I/2