REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE 3 (July 28, 2022) (reporting that by January 2022, OCLA
had attorneys “trained and available for appointment in all 37 judicial districts” in
Washington), https://www.ocla.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/OCLA-Report-to-
the-Legislature-Implementation-of-Indigent-Tenant-Right-to-Counsel-FINAL-7-28-22-
.pdf [https://perma.cc/M9G6-U8YM]. The statute, court rule, and King County’s
standing order require the court to inform an unrepresented tenant of their right to counsel
at the first unlawful detainer hearing, inquire whether they want to assert the right, and
17
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Sangha v. Keen et al., No. 103332-0
refer the tenant for eligibility screening. No discretion is provided. The court does not
need to ascertain a factual basis for indigency; the predicate is a tenant who appears
without representation and the court’s duty to inquire whether the tenant wishes to be
screened. SPR 98.24W(1)(a); Ord. 21-0-12050-3, supra, at 4; see also MOSM, LLC v.
Deegan, 30 Wn. App. 2d 284, 291-92, 544 P.3d 591 (2024).
2. Relief
The tenant urges us to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it
declined to vacate the default judgment under CR 60(b)(1). The tenant claims irregularity
in the trial court’s procedure, justifying relief from judgment by showing the court
committed legal error when it did not appoint counsel and set a show cause hearing. But
that argument goes to the underlying judgment. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 17 (trial court’s
decision rests on “errors of law”). The tenant appealed the order denying the motion to
vacate judgment, not the judgment itself. Generally, when a judgment is not appealed