Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tenant Evictions Procedure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Washington Supreme Court hears dispute over default judgments and tenants’ right to counsel

Washington State Supreme Court · February 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court considered whether trial judges may enter default judgments in unlawful detainer cases after a tenant files a notice of appearance, centering on SPR 98.24W and RCW provisions that require advising and, for eligible tenants, referring them to counsel.

The Washington State Supreme Court on Feb. 11 heard arguments about whether a trial court may enter a default judgment in an eviction case after a tenant has filed a written notice of appearance without first ensuring the tenant has access to counsel.

Yuan Ting, attorney for the petitioner, told the court that the trial judge below allowed the landlord to obtain a default despite the tenant’s notice of appearance and argued that practice "significantly undermines the right to counsel" because it permits landlords to bypass the statutorily designed show-cause process that is meant to ensure access to legal help for eligible tenants. Ting urged the justices to hold that CR 55 default procedure may not be used to evade the protections in the unlawful detainer statutes and SPR 98.24W and to require courts to deny default motions and redirect parties to the show-cause hearing when a tenant has appeared.

Responding, Julie Martaniello, counsel for the respondent, said there are two central questions: whether the trial judge abused discretion in refusing to vacate the default and whether the statutory scheme contemplates that a landlord "may" set a show-cause hearing rather than being compelled to do so the moment a notice of appearance is filed. Martaniello told the court the trial judge ultimately stayed the writ and appointed counsel, and the appointed counsel then had the chance to seek vacatur but did not present a prima facie defense; she argued that, given those facts and prevailing civil-procedure rules (CR 55), the judge did not abuse discretion.

Both sides discussed statutory text and practical court procedures. Ting pointed to SPR 98.24W’s direction that when a tenant appears without counsel the court should advise the tenant of the right to counsel, refer eligible tenants to legal services, and provide a reasonable time for counsel to be obtained. He also cited statutory provisions governing unlawful detainer procedure and asserted that the show-cause hearing is the statutory vehicle by which tenants secure counsel and present an oral or written answer.

Martaniello countered that subsection language in the summons and related RCW provisions allow landlords to seek an answer to the complaint and that CR 55 remains applicable where the statutory text does not plainly foreclose default procedure. She also described practical concerns raised by King County practice: show-cause proceedings can be delayed, discovery may be useful ahead of a show-cause hearing, and landlords legitimately seek clarity about defenses before committing the time and expense of an evidentiary hearing.

Several justices pressed both sides on operational questions: whether the court must physically call a tenant into court to advise about counsel when the tenant’s appearance is a written notice, whether the default-motion calendar in some counties proceeds without oral argument, and what procedural steps courts should take when a landlord files a CR 55 motion after a tenant files a notice of appearance.

Both counsel agreed the trial court has discretion on vacating defaults but disputed whether that discretion was abused in the underlying proceedings and whether the court’s procedural obligations under SPR 98.24W are triggered by a written notice of appearance. Martaniello emphasized that the trial court in the case stayed the writ and appointed counsel before resolving the vacatur motion; Ting argued that even where no meritorious defenses exist, courts must follow the statutory protections that secure counsel and the show-cause process.

The courtroom record contains inconsistent references to party names (the clerk announced the case as "Rajiv Sangha v. Jeremy Keane," while counsel identified their clients with different spellings/names in argument). The transcript does not resolve those inconsistencies; the thrust of the oral argument focused on the procedural and statutory questions described above.

The case was submitted after rebuttal; the court recessed for 10 minutes.