Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 324427.pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 324427.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,703 chars
keys to Madison. Despite the conversation between Ms. Goodeill and Martie, Madison

treated September 3 as the Goodeills' actual move-out date.

On September 4, Madison completed a move-out condition report, noting that the

house needed a "deep clean" and some other minor repairs in order to be ready to rent.

Def.'s Ex. 1 at 43. The record shows that Madison hired Action Tech Inc., to clean the

blinds, and DavisPro Cleaning & Maintenance to clean, repair, and make the interior and

exterior presentable for a new tenant.

3
             

No. 32442-7-111
Goodeill v. Madison Real Estate

The record does not establish when Madison contacted Action Tech. However, the

Action Tech invoice shows that the blinds were cleaned on September 11, and the charges

totaled $136.36. This invoice was created on September 11 and was mailed to Madison

on that day.

A work order establishes that Madison did not contact DavisPro until September 9.

The DavisPro invoices show that both the interior and exterior work was completed two

days after Madison requested the work, or September 11. DavisPro billed its work on two

separate invoices, one for $112.50 dated September 18, and the other for $135.69 dated

October 1. These two invoices were mailed to Madison on those separate dates.

On September 16, Madison mailed a letter to the Goodeills, informing them that

their deposit of$800.00 was being held to pay estimated charges for which it claimed

they were liable. The notice estimated that the Goodeills owed $900.00, leaving a

balance owing to Madison of$100.00. Pl.'s Ex. 1 at 4. The estimated charges were

itemized as follows: