Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)

Citation
Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)
Parent Document
Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2001-03-08

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text

681 chars
We turn to the second factor in the CR 60(b) analysis, the existence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Housing contends the trial court relied on hearsay statements by Ms. Newbigging, which alleged that counsel for Housing told her and her father that payment of the July rent and the $250 in attorney fees would settle the matter. First, Housing’s objection is untimely; according to the record, Housing did not object when Ms. Newbigging first made her allegation and did not bring up the hearsay matter until the presentment hearing. Nonetheless, the trial court stated that it did not consider the statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted.