parties to personally sign the request as required under the court rules and the
arbitration statute. The trial court permitted the trial de novo despite the Lewises’
lack of compliance, but the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the statute and
the SCCARs require strict compliance. The Court of Appeals did not reach the
merits of the Lewises’ appeal, holding the trial de novo was a nullity and remanding
for the trial court to enter judgment on the arbitration award and assess attorney fees
and costs. We granted review.
We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the Lewises failed to properly
request a trial de novo because they did not personally sign the request as required
by the court rule and the arbitration statute. Because the sole means to appeal
following an adverse arbitration award is through a trial de novo, the Lewises cannot
2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9
independently appeal the adverse summary judgment order. We reverse the lower
courts’ attorney fees awards, which failed to consider all of the statutory grounds
under which fees may be awarded, and remand to the trial court for further
consideration of both parties’ fee requests.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2015, the Lewises moved into a house owned by the Ridgways and
managed by Crossroads Management. As a condition for renting the property, the
Lewises paid a $1,695 refundable security deposit. The Lewises and an agent of
Crossroads, Calvin Smith, conducted a walk-through of the property and recorded
the property’s condition on a checklist. When the Lewises vacated the property in
May 2018, Smith and the Lewises did a move-out walk-through. The Ridgways did