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

1,789 chars

landlord seeks to evict the tenant for reasons like breaching the lease, (e.g., committing waste or

nuisance, or even failure to pay rent), those grounds are all rooted in the actions of the tenant. It

is predictable that the viability of those reasons would be frequently disputed by the tenant with

their own testimony, documents, and other evidence. But the owner/occupier basis for eviction is

different. Where the owner wants to reside is wholly unrelated to the actions of the tenant, and

only the owner would typically be in possession of evidence supporting that desire. And here,

neither the reasoning for moving into the property nor the timing of Scott’s need for housing is

seriously disputed by the Jorgensens. The Jorgensens only offer evidence that at some point Scott

intended to move into his previous residence and contend that his housing needs may not be the

primary reason for the eviction. But no answer is apparent in the record to the superior court’s

questioning about fire damage to Scott’s previous residence.

27
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60448-5-II

Moreover, allegations related to the septic, about which there are clearly issues of material

fact, do not contradict the undisputed need for Scott to reside on the property at the precise time

the eviction notice was issued (because of his discharge from WHS). The septic dispute could

have direct relevance to issues of outstanding rent, but not to immediate possession due to the basis

for this eviction.

In the end, the superior court reviewed the evidence and assessed that it appeared that the

Egberts had the right to be restored to possession of the property without a trial. See RCW

59.18.380. As the superior court explained,