section 8

Citation: section 8
Parent Document: Sherwood Auburn Llc, V. Joel Pinzon, Et Ano. (2022)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10798089/sherwood-auburn-llc-v-joel-pin... ↗

Full Text

2,638 chars

11
                       Sherwood Auburn incorrectly asserts that it was not required to provide any notice
          pursuant to the CARES Act, but argues that it “should be praised” for nevertheless doing so. Br.
          of Resp’t at 20. Indeed, Sherwood Auburn discloses in its briefing, “[l]andlords routinely provide
          superfluous notices and/or information to tenants in eviction notices, or otherwise, for no other
          reason than to keep eviction costs down.” Br. of Resp’t at 18. “Providing superfluous information
          and notices to tenants,” the landlord tells us, “is just a commonsense practice of law.” Br. of
          Resp’t at 19. As we hold herein, this purportedly “commonsense practice” may undermine the
          landlord’s attempt to comply with legal obligations.
                    12
                       When notice is inadequate in an unlawful detainer action, Washington courts have at
          times referred to the superior court’s lack of authority to enter judgment as an issue of
          “jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Heuft, 141 Wn. App. at 633 (“Because compliance with service
          procedures is jurisdictional, we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.”); Terry, 114
          Wn.2d. at 560 (“We hold that . . . there is no jurisdiction without statutory notice.”). Indeed,
          Pinzon and Mendez discuss this as a “jurisdictional” issue.
                    However, our “Supreme Court has noted that ‘[t]he term “subject matter jurisdiction” is
          often confused with a court’s “authority” to rule in a particular manner,’ leading to ‘improvident and
          inconsistent use of the term.’” In re Marriage of McDermott, 175 Wn. App. 467, 480, 307 P.3d
          717 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Marley v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 125
          Wn.2d 533, 539, 886 P.2d 189 (1994)). Indeed, the unlawful detainer statute itself provides that
          the superior court “of the county in which the property or some part of it is situated” has
          jurisdiction over unlawful detainer proceedings. RCW 59.12.050. Thus, “[t]he proper terminology
          is that a party who files an [unlawful detainer] action after improper notice may not maintain such
          action or avail itself of the superior court’s jurisdiction.” Bin, 163 Wn. App. at 374.
                    13
                       Sherwood Auburn requests an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to RCW
          59.18.410 and RCW 59.18.290. Because Sherwood Auburn is not the prevailing party, it is not
          entitled to such an award.

Other Sections in This Document (322)

Full Text