Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2060448-5-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,792 chars

But this rebuttable presumption of retaliation is conditional. For example, if at the time the

landlord serves the tenant the eviction notice, the tenant is behind on rent or in breach of the lease

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

agreement, then “there is a rebuttable presumption . . . that the landlord’s action is neither a reprisal

nor retaliatory action against the tenant.” RCW 59.18.250.

The Jorgensens contend that they established a rebuttable presumption that the Egberts

issued the 90-day eviction notice for retaliatory purposes based on its timing—it was issued only

two weeks after the Jorgensens’ attorney sent them the demand letter. The Jorgensens assert that

they “submitted ample evidence of retaliation” that undercut the Egberts’ credibility and created a

genuine issue of whether their acts were primarily retaliatory. Br. of Appellant at 22. The

Jorgensens argue even if there are questions about paying rent that could create a rebuttable

presumption in favor of the Egberts, there are genuine issues of material fact that require a trial.8

According to the Jorgensens, “[d]isputes about retaliatory motive . . . will nearly always give rise

to a genuine issue of fact” and necessitate trial. Br. of Appellant at 17. Thus, they claim that the

superior court’s decision to authorize the Writ of Restitution without a trial was error.

We are unpersuaded that the superior court abused its discretion. Given the specific basis

for this eviction—the owner seeking to occupy the property—the superior court did not err when

it determined that the Egberts were entitled to be restored to possession. The disputed issues, of

which there are some, like outstanding rent, go to “other relief.”