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
1,799 charsThe first proposed class … includes: All persons in the State of Washington who signed a lease with TAG [Realty] containing a deposit forfeiture provision herein described, which constitutes violations of the [CPA]. … The second proposed class … includes: All persons in the State of Washington who signed a lease with TAG [Realty] and who did have some or all of such deposit forfeited, voided, or otherwise confiscated (and thus retained by TAG [Realty] or its principals), which constitutes violations of the [RLTA]. In TAG Realty’s answer, it denied that its lease agreement with the Cromars contained a security deposit forfeiture provision that was illegal under the RLTA but admitted that it “unknowingly and in reliance upon prior court orders, lease form 3 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 87780-1-I/4 publications, and established practice retained deposit that it now knows was improper because the remedy for early termination is statutorily defined.” TAG Realty also denied that it was liable for violations of the CPA “by having [the Cromars] and class members sign an agreement allowing a deposit to be forfeited.” TAG Realty asserted 15 affirmative defenses and “reserve[d] the right to plead further answer, affirmative defenses, counterclaims and/or third-party claims as investigation and discovery may warrant.” TAG Realty requested the court deny the Cromars’ alleged class, dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and award TAG Realty its costs and attorney fees. 4 On September 6, 2024, TAG Realty responded to the the Cromars’ first set of interrogatories and admitted that it withheld security deposits for 13 additional tenants’ early lease terminations since September 8, 2019. TAG Realty noted that discovery was