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
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60448-5-II Published Opinion.pdf
Full Text
1,678 chars10 The main thrust of the Jorgensens’ appeal is that the superior court erred because it authorized a writ of restitution without a trial. But the Jorgensens also assign error to the superior court’s finding of fact that “suggests” the Jorgensens owed rent. Br. of Appellant at 3. Specifically, they argue that substantial evidence does not support the superior court’s finding 2.3 that “Defendant(s) has/have not: [X] paid the past due rent.” Br. of Appellant at 29 (quoting CP at 289). They contend that the issue of outstanding rent was never decided by the superior court. We question whether this finding has any consequence (or whether it was just a product of a pre-printed form). But if it means anything, it is limited, and substantial evidence appears to support it. Evidence submitted (by both parties) supports the conclusion that some amount of rent had not been paid, including Hailey Jorgensen’s declarations where she stated that she fell behind on rent and needed to apply for rental assistance three times in order to back-pay their rent for the period of December 2021 through June 2023; Jackson’s and Scott’s declarations that stated that the Jorgensens stopped regularly paying rent in December 2021; and a copy of a rental assistance check from February 2022. 29 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 60448-5-II of suit or arbitration and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” RCW 59.18.290. Thus, as the prevailing party on appeal, the Egberts are entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal. CONCLUSION We affirm and award attorney fees on appeal to the Egberts. PRICE, J. We concur: MAXA, P.J. LEE, J. 30