The tenant was evicted. They sought direct review of the denial of the motion to
vacate judgment and moved to accelerate review. The landlord opposed both. We
retained the case and granted the motion for accelerated review.
We received amicus curiae briefs in support of the tenant from the Office of Civil
Legal Aid (OCLA), Tenant Law Center, and Northwest Justice Center.
ANALYSIS
A superior court’s interpretation of a statute and court rule involves a question of
law, which we review de novo. Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wn.2d 308, 313-14, 386 P.3d
711 (2016) (citing King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142
Wn.2d 543, 555, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)); Seto v. Am. Elevator, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 767, 772,
154 P.3d 189 (2007). When determining the meaning of a court rule, we apply the same
principles we use to determine the meaning of a statute. Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d
460, 466, 145 P.3d 1185 (2006) (plurality opinion). “Our fundamental purpose in
construing statutes is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature.” In re
Marriage of Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353, 363, 268 P.3d 215 (2011). We determine
legislative intent primarily from the statutory language. Id. When the meaning of a
statute or rule is plain on its face, we must give effect to that meaning. Dep’t of Ecology
v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Plain meaning is derived
4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Sangha v. Keen et al., No. 103332-0
from “all that the Legislature has said in the statute and related statutes which disclose
legislative intent about the provision in question.” Id. at 11.
Because this case concerns residential evictions, the right to counsel for indigent