Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,784 chars
circumstances, double damages. Id. The Lewises sought to recover their full deposit

as well as $3,390 in punitive damages pursuant to RCW 59.18.280, and reasonable

attorney fees and costs pursuant to chapter 59.18 RCW and RCW 4.84.250-.300.

Before answering the cross claim, the Ridgways offered the Lewises the full

amount of their deposit in exchange for dismissal. The Lewises did not respond to

this settlement offer. About a month later, the Ridgways sent another settlement

1
The legislature has now increased this deadline to 30 days. LAWS OF 2023, ch. 331,
§ 4(1)(a).

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9

offer pursuant to RCW 4.84.250-.300 in the principal amount of $1,800. The

Lewises rejected this offer, noting it failed to include attorney fees and costs. A day

later, the Ridgways offered $2,800 to settle the case, which expressly included

$1,000 in attorney fees and costs. The Lewises again rejected the offer.

After negotiations failed, the Ridgways answered the cross claim and moved

for partial summary judgment. They argued no issue of material fact existed as to

their compliance with RCW 59.18.280 because Crossroads had mailed the damage

statement and refund check within the required 21-day period. The Lewises

countered that the statute mandates something more than just a timely response and

that a question of fact existed as to whether the Ridgways intended to wrongly

withhold their deposit for damages.

The court granted the Ridgways’ motion, dismissed the statutory claim, and

capped the Lewises’ damages at the amount of their security deposit. After

unsuccessfully moving for interlocutory discretionary review of the summary