in the unlawful detainer action, the court was required to advise the tenant of their right to
counsel if indigent, refer the tenant for eligibility screening, and continue the hearing.
SPR 98.24W(1); Ct.’s Standing Ord. for Eviction Resol. Pilot Program (ERPP), In re
Resp. by King County Super. Ct. to Pub. Health Emergency in Wash. State, No. 21-0-
12050-3, at 4 (King County Super. Ct. July 16, 2021) (Ord. 21-0-12050-3),
https://courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/COVID19_King/King%20County%20Superi
or%20Court%20FILED-
Court’s%20Standing%20Order%20for%20Eviction%20Resolution%20Pilot%20Program
%20(ERPP).pdf. If the tenant did not respond to the summons or responded to the
summons but failed to appear at the hearing, the landlord could properly move for default
under CR 55. See SPR 98.24W(2).
The landlord’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
First, the landlord argues that the Civil Rules allow default judgments for failure to
answer a complaint as this court recognized in Reynolds, 193 Wn.2d at 157. The Civil
Rules govern civil proceedings except where inconsistent with statutes applicable to
special proceedings. CR 81(a). Unlawful detainer actions are “special proceedings,”
13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Sangha v. Keen et al., No. 103332-0
making the Civil Rules inapplicable if inconsistent with the unlawful detainer statutes.
Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 374-75. Thus, the Civil Rules apply to unlawful detainer
actions, but when they conflict with the unlawful detainer statute, the statute as a “special
proceeding” controls. Id. In this case, contrary to the landlord’s claim, CR 55 conflicts
with RCW 59.18.365(3). See Br. of Resp’t at 18 (“there is no conflict between” the court