Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf

security deposit. Despite prevailing under the RLTA, they were awarded no attorney

fees and were taxed with $27,276.50 for the Ridgways’ attorney fees (plus an

undetermined amount of fees on appeal). This is because the lower courts

recognized the Ridgways as the prevailing party under the small claims statute and

the arbitration statute and rules and did not reach the merits of the Lewises’ appeal.

However, the plain language of RCW 59.18.280 conditions the award of attorney

fees and costs to a tenant on recovery of their security deposit. This recovery was

not in dispute nor did the lower courts consider whether the various fee-shifting

statutes conflict. Further proceedings are necessary to resolve the issue of attorney

fees and costs.

Accordingly, we vacate the current fee awards to the Ridgways and remand

for the trial court to consider both parties’ claims for attorney fees and costs

requested under the various statutes and rules. Because the briefing in this court is

limited and the parties have not had an opportunity to address the Kirby decision,

the trial court may conduct additional proceedings to determine who is entitled to

attorney fees and costs below. Further determination of the parties’ requests for

attorney fees and costs in this court and the Court of Appeals shall abide that

determination.

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9

CONCLUSION

We affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that the Lewises’ trial de novo

request was ineffective because they failed to personally sign the filing. A party

must strictly comply with the requirements for requesting a trial de novo and