Last week, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision that will make it more difficult for residential landlords to evict tenants. In Sangha v. Keen, the state's high court held that a tenant has a right to hearing on a landlord's motion for a default judgment, even if the tenant has not responded to the landlord's motion.

The Facts

Like most landlord-tenant disputes that end up in court, the facts are straightforward: the tenants had been renting a house from the landlord for the past two years but stopped paying rent in late 2023. The landlord filed an unlawful detainer action in King County Superior Court.

The tenants filed a pro se notice of appearance but did not formally answer the unlawful detainer complaint. As a result, the landlord moved for a default judgment. The tenants, who received notice of the default hearing, did not attend. The superior court later issued a default judgment and a writ of restitution, and the tenants were evicted. The trial court later denied the tenant's motion to vacate the default judgment.

The tenants appealed and asked for accelerated review in the Washington Supreme Court. The Court agreed with the tenants, reversed the default judgment, and ordered a hearing on the landlord's motion.

The Ruling

In siding with the tenants, the Court focused on the language of the unlawful detainer statute. Under RCW 59.18.365, a tenant can respond to an unlawful detainer complaint by serving a written answer or a written notice of appearance.

The landlord primarily relied on the Washington State civil rules, which permit a court to enter a default judgment if the opposing party fails to appear. The Court rejected this argument. Because unlawful detainer actions are “special proceedings,” the specific procedures and rules under RCW 59.18.365 supersede any conflicting civil rules that apply generally in other civil cases.

Furthermore, under the unlawful detainer statute, a tenant is entitled to a show-cause hearing if he or she responds. Because a notice of appearance qualifies as a response, the tenants here were entitled to a hearing before the court could issue a default judgment.