344301 Appellant

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

1/21

COURT OF APPEALSDIVISION I1OF THE STATE OF W ASHINGTON

Jeff Walker, et a]. , Respon dents,v .Margaretann E. Salazar, Appellant.

BRIEF OF APPELLA NT

Helmut Kah, W SBA # 18541Of Attorneys for AppellantElizabeth E. Powell, WSBA # 30152Of Attorneys for Appellant

Helmut Kah , Attorney at Law Elizabeth E. Powell, Attorney at Law16818 14ot" Ave N E 535 Dock St Ste 107Woodinville, Washington 98072-9001 Tacoma, Washington 98402-4629Telephone: (425) 892-6467 Telephone: (253) 274-1 51 8Facsimile: (425) 892-6468 Facsimile: (253) 572-8892Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

2/21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A . ASSIGNMENTS O F ERROR ...........................................................................B . ISSUES PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR .............................C . STATE MENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................

....................................................................................................A R G U M E N T 8................................................................................................CONCLUSION 17

TABLE OF AUTHO RITIES

State CasesHousing Authority v. Pleasant.112 Wn.App. 382. 109 ~ . 3 ' ~22 (2005) ..............................................14. 15. 16

State StatutesChapter 59.12 R C W ............................................................................ 9. 10. 13. 14RCW 59.12.090 ...............................................................................................2 13RCW 59.12.120 .....................................................................................................1RCW 59.12.121 ..................................................................................................... 9RCW 59.12.130 .....................................................................................................0RCW 59.12.140 .....................................................................................................2Chapter 59.16 R C W .............................................................................................. 8Chapter 59.18 R C W ............................................................................... , 13 , 14RCW 59.18.380 ....................................................................................................3

Court RulesCR 38 .....................................................................................................................0

............................................................................................................CLR 38(b) 10

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

3/21

A. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORThe trial court erred as follows:1 . In gran ting relief to plaintiff in the absence of any e viden ce insupport of the relief requested and granted.2. In enterin g the Findings of Fact, C onclusions of Law, andJudgment on December 1 5,2 00 5 (CP 52 - 54).3. In reciting at CP 53 lines 6 -7 that "The court examined the partiesand witnesses present, considered the evidence * * * ."4. In mak ing the follow ing Findings of Fact on Decem ber 15, 2005:

I . Plaintiff has and still does hold title or represent the holder oftitle to lands and premises described in the complaint. (CP 53lines 10 - 11)11. Defendant(s) now occupy the premises and are now in actualpossession of said prem ises. (CP 53 lines 12 - 14)111. The Defendant(s) are now in default of RCW 61.24.060.(s)(sic) and RCW 59.18 . (CP 5 3 lines 14 - 15)IV . The Plaintiff(s) purchased said property at Trustee's Sale on:

September 23, 200 5. (CP 5 3 lines 16- 18 )5. In entering the following Conclusions of Law:

I. Judgment sh ould be entered in favor of Plaintiff(s) andagainst Defendant(s) for unpaid rents, costs and attorneys'fees, and issuance of a Writ of Restitution. (CP 53 lines 23 -24)

6. In entering Judgment in fav or of plaintiff(s) against thedefendant(s) as follows ( CP 5 4):

The Clerk of the Court shall issue forthwith a W rit ofRestitution imm ediately forthwith, returnable ten (1) days after its

Appellant's Opening Brief- 1 -

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

4/21

issuance, directing the Sheriff to remove the Defendant(s) and alothers from the property and to restore possession of the propertyof the property described as 19616 5TH TREET EAST, BONNEYLAK E, WA 98390, in PIERCE C ounty, Washington, provided thatif return is not possible within ten (1 0) days, the return on the writshall be automatically extended for a second ten (10) d ays p eriod.The Writ shall also authorize the Sheriff to break and enter asnecessary.

There is no substantial issue of Material fact of the right ofPlaintiff(s) to be granted other relief as prayed for in the co mp laintand provided for by statue (sic).

Defendant(s) islare guilty o f unlawful detainer and the tenancyof the Defendan t(s) in the premises is hereby termin ated.

Plaintiff(s) is awarde d judgm ent against Defend ant(s) as setforth in Judgme nt Summ ary above. These sums shall accr ueinterest at twelve percent (12% ) per annum until paid.

7. In entering the following m onetary Judgment for plaintiff(s)against the defendant(s) as set forth in the judgm ent sum ma ry (CP52):Attorney's Fees ......................................400.00.....................................................osts $3 14.00

8. In ente ring the Order Enforcing Writ o f Restitution on December22 ,20 05 which is t it led OR DER STA YING WR IT ISSUEDDEC EM BER 15, 2005, which provides (CP 145)"The undersigned court, having reviewed the files andpleadings in this matter now O RD ERS that:"Defendant's motion is denied."


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

5/21

9. In denying defendant's Motion for Revision and in entering thefollowing ORDER ON REVISION on January 13, 2006 :"Plaintiff does have right of possession as a bona fidepurc haser . 59.1 2 is operative statute in case. Plaintif f hascol or of title. Court was proper in issuing Writ. Plaintif f topost $5,000 bond under 59.12.090 and Defendant may post$7,500 (Seventy five hundred) bond before see king a stay.Defendant will file a petition within 30 days. Attorney fees arenot granted and complaint amended to indicate 59 .12 andexclude 59.18. There is no existing stay on this ee+ewrit from12-23-2005."

Signed by Judge John R. Hickman10. In entering the following o rder on January 3 1 , 2006 (CP 164 -166):

"This matter having come on by the Plai ntiff s OR DER ENFORCINGWR IT OF RESTITUTION and the court having reviewing (sic) thefiles and heard argument of the parties, it is hereby"ORDERED that the writ which expired January 4, 2006 shall bereissued on January 3 1,2 00 6, and enforcem ent of the writ shallproceed."

Signed: David H. Johnson, Com m'rB. ISSUES PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENTS O F ERROR

May a trial court grant substantive relief to a plaintiff in an unlawfuldetainer action under the following circumstances:

(a) Plaintiff filed and duly served a complaint for unlawfuldetainer under Chapter 59.12 RCW ;(b) The complaint is signed solely by the pl ain tif fs lawyer;(c) Th e complaint is not verified;


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

6/21

(d) There is no evidence or reason to believe that the plain tiffslawyer who signed the comp laint has personal know ledge ofany of the facts or events underlying the allegations of thecomplaint;

(e) The defendant answered the comp laint in writing as directedby the summo ns:(f ) An order to show cause directed the defend ant to appear andshow cause why the relief requested by plaintiff should not begranted;(g) The defendant appeared in person with counsel at thescheduled date and time for the show cause hearing;(h) At the show cause hearing the plaintiff offered no evidencewhatsoever in support of the allegations and relief requested bythe unverified co mplaint;(i) At the show cause hearing the court did not sw ear in or orallyexamine any w itness or party; and(j) At the sho w cause hearing the court granted plaintiff the reliefrequested.

C. STATEMENT OF THE CASEOn November 12, 2005. plaintiff served defendant with an EVICTIO N

SUMMONS (CP 1 - 3) and a COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL D ET AN ER(CP 4 - 10). The sum mons and the complaint are signed by p laint iffs attorneywh o has no personal know ledge of any of the allegations of the complaint. (see

Defendant's NOTICE OF AP PEAR ANC E was faxed to plaintiff onNovember 2 1,20 05. (CP 12 - 13 )


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

7/21

Plaintiff filed and served a MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE(CP 14), an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (C P 15), and a NOT E FORCOM MISSION ER'S CALEN DAR (CP 16) on November 23,2 005 , setting theshow cause hearing for 1 :30 p.m. on December 15,2 005.

The ORD ER TO S HO W CA USE requires the defendant to appear in courtat 1 :30 p.m. on December 151h, 2005 , in Room 260 of the Pierce Coun tyCourthouse and "show cause":

" * * * why this court should not issue a Writ ofrestitution restorin g to Plaintiff possession of thepremises described in the Complaint."and states that

"Upon the failure of Defendant(s) to appear on thedate and time specified, this court will order the sheriffto remove the Defendant(s) from the premises and grantall other relief requested in Pla in tif fs comp laint."(CP 15)

On December 15,2 005, Defendant filed a detailed ANS WE R TOCOMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER (CP 19 - 40) and theDECLARATION OF MARCUS JAYM ES BOGUSLAWSKI (CP 41 - 51),served the answer and declaration on the plaintiff, and provided a copy to thecommissioner at the hearing at 1 :30 p.m. in Roo m 260 o f the Pierce CountyCourthouse.

Pla int iff s counsel made factual assertions at the sho w cause hearing butoffered no testimony of any witness, no do cumen ts as exhibits, and no

Appellan t's Opening Brief- 5 -

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

8/21

declarations or affidavits in support of the relief requeste d. Pl ai nt if fs caseconsisted solely of the allegations of the complaint and th e oral statements of itscou nse l. (V RP 1211 512005)

The following colloquy occurred between defendant's counsel and thecourt at the sh ow cause hearing:

MR. KAH "* * * the issue on the unlawful de taineraction is the right to possessio n.

TH E COURT : Okay. So he is the lawful own er at this point.If you have - - ."

MR. KAH: And -- and - - an d - and w e ar e entitled to re--- to answer and establish defenses that gospecifically to the right of possession. Andthat's what we have done.

TH E CO URT : Okay. Well . I 'm not - - I don 't find them tobe a sufficient basis to deny th e reque st for thewrit at this time, so I 'm going to sign this.

MR. KAH: And there are factual issues here, You r Honor,which - -

* * * *

MR. KAH: * * * But under the deed of - - under theUnlawful Detainer Law - -


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

9/21

THE COURT: No. I'm signing the order.MR. K A H : - - my client has a right to a jury trial on

factual issues, and she's requesting anevidentiary hearing and a jury trial.

THE CO UR T: I'm rejecting. I'm signing the order for writ.The court then signed the FINDIN GS OF FACT , CONC LUSIO NS OF

LAW ; JUDGM ENT dated December 15,2 005 . (CP 52 - 54)On December 22,20 05, defendant filed a MOTIO N FO R REVISION (CP

61 - 138), a MEM ORANDU M RE STA NDA RD OF REVIEW ON REVISIONOF COMM ISSIONER'S RULING (CP 58 - 60), and a MO TION FOR STAYOF WRIT PENDING REVISION HEARING & TRIAL; DECLARATION INSUPPO RT THEREOF. (CP 56 - 57 )

An OR DE R staying the writ of restitution w as entered on Decem ber 22,

2005. (CP 139)An OR DER denying stay of the writ of restitution was entered on

December 23 ,2005 . (CP 145; VRP December 23 ,200 5)Plaintiff replied to Defendant's Motion for Revision on January 13, 2005.

(CP 146 - 148)The revision hearing was held on January 13 ,2 00 6, upon the record

without presentation of evidence. (VR P January 13, 2006). Th e court entered thefollowing order:


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

10/21

"Plaintiff does have right of possession as a bona fidepurchaser. 59.12 is operativ e statute in case. Plaintiff ha s color oftitle. Court was proper in issuing Writ. Plaintiff to po st $5,0 00bond under 59.12.090 and Defenda nt may post $7,500 (Seven tyfive hundred) bond before seeking a stay. Defendant wi ll file apetition within 30 days. Attorney fees are not granted a n dcomplaint amended to indicate 59.12 and exclude 59.1 8 . There isno existing stay on this g5t4g writ from 12-23-2005."

Signed by Judge John R. HickmanAn Order Enforcing Writ o f Restitution was entered Ja nuary 3 I, 2006,

provid ing for reissuance of the Writ of Restitution that had ex pire d on January 4,2006. (CP 164). An AMENDED WRIT O F RESTITUTION w as issued onFebruary 1,2006. (CP 168)

A STIPULATION AND OR DER CLARIFYING O RD ER ENTEREDON R EVISION ON JAN UAR Y 13, 2006, was entered Febru ary 8, 2006, deletingthe judgm ent for attorney fees and costs that had been entered o n Decem ber 15,2005. (CP 169 - 172)

Defendant appealed on February 13,2 006 . (CP 173- 18 2 )D. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY (Applicable to all assignments of error)

This Unlawful Detainer came before the court on Thursda y, D ecember 15,2005, upon plaintiffs unverified complaint unsupported by any declaration,affidavit, or testimony of any witness. This Unlawful Detaine r is under chapter59.12 RCW. Chapters 59.16 and 59 .18 do not apply to this case .

The Summons directed defendant to serve a written response or notice ofappearance by Novemb er 21 ,20 05 . She complied.


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

11/21

Plaintiff then caused an Order to Show Cause to issue on November 23,2005, which directs the defendant to appear at 1:30 p.m. on D ecemb er 15, 2005,in room 260 of the Pierce County Courthouse and show cau se why a Writ ofRestitution should not issue.

T he Order to Show Cause further states that:"Upon the failure of the Defendant(s) to appear o n the dateand time specified, this court will order the sheriff to rem ovethe Defendant(s) from the premises and grant all othe r reliefrequested in Plaintiffs complaint."

It should be observed that nothing in chapter 59. 12 RC W authorizesproceedings on an Order to Show Cause which, on its face, purports to shift theburden of proof to the defendant. Proceeding in that manner is contrary to courtrule, statute, and d ue process.

RC W 59.1 2.1 2 1 regarding Pleading by defendant provides that:"On or before the day fixed for his appearance t he defendant

may ap pear and answ er or demur."Defendant served and filed her answer, affirmative defenses, and a

supporting declaration before the time of hearing on Decem ber 15, 200 5, asdirected by the Order to Show Cause and as provided by R CW 59.12.121.

The trial court de nied defendant her right to a trial of the issues betweenthe parties.


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

12/21

RC W 59.12.1 30 provides that issues of fact must be tried by a jury unlessjury is waived:

"Whenever an issue of fact is presented by the pleadin gs itmus t be tried by a jury, unless such a jury be waive d as in othercases. The jury shall be formed in the sam e mann er as other trialjuries in the court in which the action is pending; and in all casesactions under this chapter shall take precede nce o f all other civilactions."Thi s mean s that the defendant is entitled to trial of all issues of fact. Trial

is to be by a jury unless jury is waiv ed.C R 38 defines "trial" as follows:

"A trial is the judicial exam ination o f the issues between theparties, whether they are issues of law or of fact."

and provides that:"The right of trial by jury as declared by article 1, section 21of the constitution or as given by a statute shall be preserved tothe parties inviolate."

Defen dant has not waived jury trial. No case sched ule has been issued forthis matter. See PCLR 38(b). Defendant has not waive d trial of any issue of fact.

Th e plaintiff has not replied to defend ant's answ er and affirmativedefense s. Defen dant's answ er raises factual and legal issues that go to the heartof the matter, i.e. the pla int iffs allegation that helit has the right to possession ofthe defendant's homestead real property.

Unde r chapter 59.12 RCW , when a defendant appears and answers on theday set fo r her first appearance, the matter must be set for trial of the factual and


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

13/21

legal issues. The factual issues will be tried by jury unless jury is wai ved, inwhich case the factual issues will be tried by the court.

At defendant 's first appearance on Thursday, December 15 ,20 05 , theplaintiff presented no evidence whatsoever in support of its request for relief.Pla int iffs counsel spoke but did not testify.

Had counsel offered herself as a witness to be sw orn and testify, hertestimony would have been incompetent as hearsay ,not based on personalknow ledge, and may have been ethically improper under applicable RPC s. Nowitnesses were offered. N o declarations or affidavits were subm itted. Noevidentiary exhibits were offered or adm itted into the record .

Although a purported trustee's deed is attached to the pl ai nt iff scomp laint, the complaint is unverified and the deed was n ot identified,authenticated, o r offered as an exhibit through the testimony of any comp etent

witness. Defend ant's answer and affirmative defenses controvert the authenticityand validity of the purported trustee's deed . The legal and factual issues havemerit.

RCW 59.12.120 allows entry o f judgment by default when the defendantdoes not appear on the day appointed:

"If on the date appointed in the summ ons the defendant doesnot appear or answer, the court shall render judgm ent in favor ofthe plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint."

Appellant's O pening Brief- 1 1 -

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

14/21

In this case, defendant appeared and answered on the day app ointed, butthe comm issioner none-the-less entered judgment against defendan t as l fbydefault despite her appearan ce and answer as directed by the su m mo ns and theorder to show cause.

RCW 59.12.140 provides that when the defendant has appeared andanswered the com plaint there will be a trial at which the plaintiff will presentproof, i.e. evidenc e, that helit is entitled to possession o f the prope rty.

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment that was entered atthe hearing on Decem ber 15 ,2 00 5, is without any basis in the record. A s alreadynoted above, and as shown by the record, plaintiff presented no com pete ntevidence whatsoever on December 15,2 005 :

The writ of restitution ordered on December 15 should ha ve been quashedrather than merely stayed pending trial. The judgment entered Decem ber 15orders issuance of a writ returnable within ten days. But since the Dec emb er 15Findings of Fact, Co nclusions of Law, and Judgment were entered improperlyand should have been vacated, the writ should have been stayed or quashed.

Even if, for the sake of argument, plaintiff had show n gro unds forissuance of apre-trial writ of restitution (which helit did not), RC W 59.12.090provides that the plaintiff shall post a bond before a pre-trial w rit of restitutionmay issue:

"before an y writ shall issue prior to judgm ent the plaintiff shallexecute to the defendant and file in court a bond in such sum a s

Appellant's Opening Brief

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

15/21

the court or judge may orde r, with sufficien t surety to beapprove d by the clerk, conditioned that the plaintiff willprosecute his action without delay, and will pay all costs thatmay be adjudged to the defendan t, and all damag es which hemay sustain by reason of the writ of restitution having beenissued, should the same be wrongfully sued out."

RCW 59.12.090 requires that the bind be posted "before an y writ shallissueprior to judgment". No judgm ent may properly issue unless the defendantis in default for failure to appear and an swer or, after trial of the factual issues,the court enters judgm ent for the plaintiff. Here, although the d efendant hadappeared an d answered and there had as yet been no trial, the trial court enteredjudgme nt in plain tiff s favor and ordered issuance of a writ of restitution withoutthe posting of a bond.

Plaintiff proceeded in this case on the basis of an Order to Show Cause.Nothing in chapter 59.12 RCW authorizes or directs that the proceedings be onthe basis of an Order to Show Cause. Show cause proceedings are prescribed forunlawful detainer proceedings brought under chapter 59.18 RCW where, in orderto obtain a w rit of restitution the landlord m ust apply to the co urt for an orderdirecting the tenant to appear and show cause why a writ should not issuerestoring the landlord to possession of the property.

RC W 59.1 8.380 provides that at the time of th e show cause hearing "[tlhecourt shall exam ine the parties and witnesses orally to ascertain the merits of thecompla int and answer." Here, the trial court failed to exa min e any witness orally


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

16/21

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

17/21

cause why a writ should not issue restoring the lan dlord topossession of the proper ty. Id. At the t ime of the show causehearing "[ t lhe cou rt shal l examine the part ies an d witnessesorally to ascertain the m erits of the complaint an d answer."RCW 59.1 8.380 (emphasis added). "[Ilf it shall ap pear that the[landlord] has the right to be restored to p ossession of theproperty, the court shall enter an order directing the issuan ce ofa writ of restitution." Id. "The cour t shal l a lso enter an ord erdirecting the part ies to proceed to t r ial on th e comp laint andanswer in the usual m anner." Id. (emphasis added). The courtmay also at that time address { I 09 P.3d 427 ) o ther reliefrequested by the landlord together with the tenant's defenses andset-off claims as relates to that relief. Id.

"The burden is upon th e plaint iff in an unlawful de taineraction to prove, by a prep ond eran ce of the evidence, therigh t to possession. Duprey v. Donahoe, 52 Wn.2d 129, 135,323 P.2d 903 (1 958). A show cause hearing in an u nlawfuldetainer act ion is a su mm ary proceeding. Carlstrom v.Hanline, 98 Wn. App. 780, 788 ,99 0 P.2d 986 (2000). Insumm ary p roceedings, the rules of evidenc e stillapply; inadmissible evidence may not be considered.Unger v. Cauchon, 1 18 Wn. App. 165, 177 n. 34 ,7 3 P.3d 1005(2003) (citing Dunlap v. Wayne, 105 Wn.2d 529, 535, 716 P.2d842 (1 986)). At oral argum ent, the Housing Authority arguedthat because Ms. Pleasant admitted to criminal conduct in heraffidavit, it needed no more proof. However, because ther e isno com petent evidence regarding a lease at al l , the H ousingAutho ri ty canno t prove a violation und er one. Further, a w r i tof restitution ca nn ot issue without co mp etent evidence toprove substan t ial compliance with the statu tory not icerequi rements . Marsh-McLennan Bldg., Inc. v . Clapp, 96 W n.App. 636, 641-4 2,980 P.2d 3 1 1 ( 1 999) . Fo r instance, proof ofservice of the not ice u nd er the unlawful detaine r s tatute srequires an affidavit. Id. at 640-41 (citing RCW 59.12.040 andCR 4(g )). Th ere is no aff idavi t here.

"Moreover , i f the pleadings in an unlawful de tain eraction disclose a m ater ial issue of fact, the issue mu st beresolved a t trial. RCW 59.12.130 ; Meadow Park Garden


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

18/21

Assocs. v . Canley, 54 Wn. App. 371, 372 , 773 P.2d 875 (198 9).Specifically, when a tenant challenges her landlord's allegationsthat she was in material noncompliance with her lease terms, sheis entitled to a trial. Meado w Park, 54 Wn. App. at 372 . That isprecisely the contention made by M s. Pleasant.

"W hether or not the court issues a p end ente litewrit a t the show cause hearing, the cour t is requiredto enter an order directing the matter to p roceed totrial. RC W 59.1 8.380 . See also RCW 59.12.130 (providingthat all factual issues in unlawful detainer actions must bedeterm ined by a jury u nless one is waiv ed). RC W 59.1 8.410also requires the entry of a final judgm ent follow ing trial. Thecourt did not set a trial in this case, nor was a final judgm ententered.

"The pendente lite writ of restitution was issued onincompetent evidence and without examination o f the partiesand witnesses as required by statute. Ms. Pleasant w aswrongfully denied a trial. We therefore reverse and rem and fortrial."(emp hasis in bold in the above extracts supplie d)

As in Housing Authorin; v. Pleasant, 12 W n.App 382, 1 09 ~ . 3 ' ~22(2005), there was no competent evidence presented at the sh ow causehearing in the instant case. Th e court improperly shifted the burden ofproof from the plaintiff who, in this case, presented n o evid enc ewhatsoever, to the defendant.

Appellant's Opening Brief- 16-

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

19/21

E. CONCLUSION

The relief that the court award ed plaintiff at the hearing onDece mbe r 15, 2005, was granted witho ut an evidentiary b asis for that relief.

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment enteredDecember 15,2005, should not have been entered and should be vacated.

Th e writ of restitution should n ot have been granted an d should bevacated.

Possession of the property should be restored to defendan t.The case shou ld be set for trial upon the question of the right of

possession and the issues laid out by the pleadings.Respectfully submitted,

Helmut Kah, WSBA # 18541Of Attorn eys for appellant


8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

20/21

Aug 09 06 08:12p Helmut Kah

.,- -I----COURT OF APPEALS * - \DIVISION 11OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTONJEFF WALKER, et aI.,

PlaintifWRespondents, APPEAL NO. 1430-111[PIERCECOUNTY NO. 5-2-14034-31

Helmut Kah certifies as follows:

v.MARGARETANN E. SALAZAR,

On Wednesday, August 9,2006,l served a true an d complete copy of theappellant's replacement opening brief (which contains the added section titledIssues Pertaining fo Assignrnenfsof Error) on the respondents by first class mail,postage prepaid, addressed to :

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICEOF APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Jeff WalkerP.O. Box 1521Pupallup, iV A 9837 1-0215RespondentEastside Funding LLC3933 Lake Washington Blvd, Suite 100

DATED: August 9,2006.

Helmut Kah, Attorney at Law Elizabeth E. Powell, ~tto%& at Law16818 140 '~ v eE 535 Dock St Ste 10 7Woodinville, Washington 98072-9001 Tacoma, Washington 98402-4629Telephone: (425) 92-6467 Telephone: (253) 274-15 18Facsimile: (425) 892-6468 Facsimile: (253)572-8892Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE - 1 Page

8/2/2019 344301 Appellant

21/21

.i6 l ' - !O PN I : 35i T . ~

2 #I

COURT OF APPEALSDIVISION I1OF THE STATE O F WASHINGTONJEFF WA LKER , et al.,

PlaintiffIRespondents, APPEAL NO. 34430-1-11IPIERCE COUNTY NO. 05-2-14034-31

Helmut K ah certifies as follows:

v.

MARGARETANN E. SALAZAR,

On Wednesday , August 9,2 00 6, I served a true and comp lete copy of theappellant's replacement opening brief (which contains the added section titledIssues Pertaining to Assignments of Error) on the respondents by first class mail,postage prepaid, addressed to :

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICEOF APPELLA NT'S BRIEF

Jeff WalkerP.O. Box 1521Puyallup, W A 98371 -02 15RespondentEastside Funding LLC3933 Lake Washington Blvd, SuiteKirkland, WA 98033-7806

DATED AugustOf Attorneys for Appellant

Helmut Kah, Attorney at Law Elizabeth E. Powell, Attorney at Law16818 14oth~ v eE 535 Dock St Ste 107Woodinville, Washington 98072-900 1 Tacoma, Washington 98402-4629Telephone: (425) 892-6467 Telephone: (253) 274- 15 18Facsimile: (425 ) 892-646 8 Facsimile: (253)572-8892Email: helmu t.kah@a tt.net Email: [email protected]

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	seanadam
View:	233 times
Download:	0 times

344301 Appellant

Documents