Notice of Appearance Bars Default Judgment Under RCW 59.18.365(3)

Introduction

Sangha v. Keen, decided May 22, 2025 by the Supreme Court of Washington, addresses whether RCW 59.18.365 permits a landlord to obtain a default judgment against a tenant who appears in an unlawful detainer action without filing a formal answer. Landlord Rajiv Sangha sued tenants Jeremy Keen and Racheal Lomas for nonpayment of rent. Although the tenants timely faxed a written notice of appearance, they did not file an answer. The trial court entered default judgment and a writ of restitution. On direct review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a written notice of appearance satisfies the tenant’s statutory response obligation under RCW 59.18.365(3) and bars default unless the tenant later fails to attend a show‐cause hearing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court first concluded de novo that RCW 59.18.365(3) — the summons form provision in the Residential Landlord‐Tenant Act (RLTA) — tells a tenant “to respond with a ‘notice of appearance’” and guarantees a show‐cause hearing if the tenant does so. Because Keen and Lomas faxed their notice of appearance by the summons deadline, the trial court erred in treating them as defaulted for failure to answer. The Court further held that neither Civil Rule 55 nor discretionary show‐cause procedures in RCW 59.18.370 displace the clear statutory scheme for eviction summonses. Finally, the Supreme Court reversed the default entry and remanded for a show‐cause hearing and appointment of counsel under the indigent‐tenant right to counsel statute (RCW 59.18.640) and court rule (SPR 98.24W).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wn.2d 308 (2016) — standard of de novo review for statutory and court‐rule interpretation.
  • King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543 (2000) — statutory construction principles.
  • Seto v. American Elevator, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 767 (2007) — analogous application of rule and statute construction.
  • Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460 (2006) — statutes and court rules share interpretive approach.
  • In re Marriage of Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353 (2011) — fundamental purpose is to carry out legislative intent.
  • Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (2002) — plain meaning control if text unambiguous.
  • Housing Auth. v. Pleasant, 126 Wn. App. 382 (2005) and Hous. Auth. v. Terry, 114 Wn.2d 558 (1990) — unlawful detainer statutes strictly construed for tenants.
  • Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365 (2007) — relationship between general and residential unlawful detainer statutes.
  • Randy Reynolds & Assocs., Inc. v. Harmon, 193 Wn.2d 143 (2019) — motion to show cause as prerequisite to writ of restitution.
  • Carlstrom v. Hanline, 98 Wn. App. 780 (2000) — nature of show‐cause hearing.

Legal Reasoning

RCW 59.18.365(3) prescribes the exact form of the eviction summons. It:

  1. Requires the tenant to submit a written response by a fixed date and time.
  2. Equates that response with a “notice of appearance.”
  3. Promises that a tenant who responds “will be notified” of a hearing in an “Order to Show Cause.”

The statute thus creates a two‐step process:

  • Step 1: Tenant meets the summons deadline by filing a notice of appearance (no formal answer required at that point).
  • Step 2: Tenant appears at the show‐cause hearing, where they may answer orally or in writing and are entitled to be advised of, screened for, and appointed counsel if indigent (RCW 59.18.640; SPR 98.24W).

Because Keen and Lomas timely filed their notice of appearance, they satisfied Step 1. The trial court’s entry of default under Civil Rule 55 conflicted with the special‐proceeding requirements of the RLTA summons form. As a special proceeding, unlawful detainer practice is governed by chapters 59.12 and 59.18 RCW; any civil‐rule conflict yields to the statutory scheme (Christensen, 162 Wn.2d at 374–75).

The 2019 amendment to RCW 59.18.365(3) strengthened tenant protections by making the promise of a show‐cause hearing mandatory for those who timely respond. The indigent tenant right to counsel (2021, RCW 59.18.640) and SPR 98.24W reinforce the legislative design by obligating courts to advise unrepresented tenants of counsel rights and continue hearings to secure representation.

Impact

Sangha v. Keen clarifies that landlords cannot bypass the show‐cause hearing by seeking default against tenants who have filed notices of appearance. Consequences include:

  • Mandatory show‐cause: Tenants who respond cannot be defaulted absent a failure to appear at the hearing itself.
  • Enhanced counsel rights: Courts must inform unrepresented tenants of their right to appointed counsel, refer them to screening, and continue hearings until counsel is secured.
  • Procedure changes: Eviction‐summons forms and landlord filings must track RCW 59.18.365(3) verbatim; landlords must schedule and notice a show‐cause hearing once a tenant appears.
  • Future disputes: Litigants will cite Sangha v. Keen to challenge default judgments in residential eviction cases statewide.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Unlawful detainer: A fast‐track eviction lawsuit that follows nonpayment or holdover notice.
  • Default judgment: A judgment entered against a defendant who fails to meet a procedural requirement.
  • Notice of appearance: A tenant’s written declaration that they intend to participate in the lawsuit—statutorily enough to block default at the summons stage.
  • Show‐cause hearing: A summary hearing to decide whether a landlord may obtain a writ of restitution (eviction order) before a full trial.
  • Writ of restitution: The court order directing law enforcement to physically remove the tenant.
  • RCW: Revised Code of Washington (state statutes).
  • SPR: Superior Court Rules (court‐adopted procedural rules).

Conclusion

Sangha v. Keen establishes a firm rule: under RCW 59.18.365(3), a tenant who timely files a written notice of appearance cannot be defaulted for failing to answer. Instead, the landlord must proceed to a show‐cause hearing where the tenant may answer and, if indigent, must be advised of and provided with appointed counsel. This decision reinforces tenant protections in residential eviction proceedings and aligns statutory language, legislative intent, and court rules to ensure fairness and access to justice.