Jsp Haven Llc V Douglas Conner

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two

July 22, 2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

JSP HAVEN, LLC dba HAVEN HILLS No. 59699-7-II
APARTMENTS,

Respondent,

DOUGLAS CONNER, and all other persons UNPUBLISHED OPINION
occupying 13914 NE Salmon Creek Avenue,
#E-164, Vancouver, WA,

Appellant.

LEE, J. — Douglas Conner appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of JSP Haven in an

unlawful detainer action. Conner argues the trial court erred when it awarded JSP Haven its

attorney fees and costs that included a convenience fee.

We hold the trial court was statutorily authorized to award JSP Haven attorney fees;

however, the trial court lacked authority to award JSP Haven the convenience fee as a statutory

cost. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s award of attorney fees to JSP Haven, but we reverse the

award of the convenience fee to JSP Haven.

FACTS

In April 2023, Conner signed a one-year lease to rent residential property from JSP Haven,

LLC1 at a rate of $1,900.00 per month. The lease term began on May 1. Conner was also

responsible for paying for the apartment’s utilities.

1
JSP Haven does business as Haven Hills Apartments.
No. 59699-7-II

On February 7, 2024, JSP Haven served Conner with a “14-Day Notice to Pay Rent or

Vacate the Premises” (14-Day Notice). Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 23. The notice alleged that Conner

failed to pay rent and utilities for January and February, 2024. The notice required that Conner

pay the amount due or vacate the premises within fourteen days. Conner failed to pay the amount

due or vacate within fourteen days.

A. UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION COMMENCES

On February 27, Conner was personally served with an “Eviction Summons (Residential),”

a “Complaint for Unlawful Detainer,” a “Motion and Declaration for Order to Show Cause,” and

an “Order to Show Cause.” Suppl. CP at 72 (some capitalization omitted). In the complaint, JSP

Haven alleged that Conner failed to comply with the 14-Day Notice and remained in possession

of the property.

JSP Haven sought a writ of restitution directing the sheriff to restore possession of the

property to JSP Haven, as well as damages “in the amount of rent and late charges owing at the

time of judgment and for reasonable attorney fees and costs.” CP at 6. The Order to Show Cause

required Conner to appear before the trial court on March 14 “and show cause why a writ of

restitution should not be issued for eviction . . . and why the other relief requested in the complaint

should not be granted.” Suppl. CP at 71.

B. SHOW CAUSE HEARING

On March 4, Conner filed a notice of appearance as a self-represented litigant. On March

14, the parties appeared for a show cause hearing. At the hearing, Conner requested that the matter

be set over to allow him time to secure counsel through the Office of Civil Legal Aid. The trial

2
No. 59699-7-II

court set the matter over to April 5. On March 19, Conner was assigned counsel, and his lawyer

filed a notice of appearance with the trial court.

On April 3, Conner filed a “Memorandum of Points and Authorities for Disallowance of

Attorney Fees with an Appearance Only.” CP at 31. In the memorandum, Conner argued that the

trial court could not award attorney fees to JSP Haven because Conner had not responded within

the meaning of RCW 59.18.290(3)(a).2

On April 4, JSP Haven filed an “Amended Plaintiff’s Declaration,” alleging that

“[s]ubsequent to the service of the [14-Day Notice], rent continued to accrue.” CP at 36, 37. Thus,

in addition to the amount alleged in the complaint, JSP Haven sought a judgment that included

missed rent and utility payments for March and April.

At the April 5 show cause hearing, Conner stated that he had no objection to the entry of a

writ of restitution. Conner also informed the trial court that he was “seeking to raise money to pay

the judgment” and if “the writ execution date” approached before the parties had settled the amount

of the judgment, he would request a stay pending judgment.3 1 Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP)

(Apr. 5, 2024) at 4.

2
RCW 59.18.290(3) provides that when the landlord prevails in an unlawful detainer action, the
trial court may grant the landlord attorney fees. “[H]owever, the court shall not award attorneys’
fees . . . [i]f the judgment for possession is entered after the tenant failed to respond to a pleading
or other notice requiring a response authorized under this chapter.” RCW 59.18.290(3)(a).
3
After a trial court issues a writ of restitution and

within three days after the service of the writ of restitution issued prior to final
judgment, the defendant . . . may, in any action for the recovery of possession of
the property for failure to pay rent, stay the execution of the writ pending final
judgment by paying into court or to the plaintiff, as the court directs, all rent found
to be due, and in addition by paying, on a monthly basis pending final judgment,

3
No. 59699-7-II

The trial court granted JSP Haven’s request for a writ of restitution and stated that the

judgment would be addressed separately. The “Order for Writ of Restitution” was issued on April

10. CP at 43.

C. JUDGMENT HEARING

JSP Haven filed a proposed judgment that included an award of attorney fees and a filing

fee that included a $7 convenience fee.4 On May 9, Conner filed a declaration objecting to JSP

Haven’s proposed judgment. In the declaration, Conner stated that he had not responded to JSP

Haven within the meaning of RCW 59.18.290(3)(a); thus, the trial court could not award JSP

Haven attorney fees as part of its judgment. Conner also stated that rent stopped accruing at the

conclusion of the 14-Day Notice period in February, meaning the trial court could not include

March and April rent or utilities in its judgment for JSP Haven. Finally, Conner argued that any

an amount equal to the monthly rent called for by the lease or rental agreement at
the time the complaint was filed

RCW 59.18.380.
4
Clark County charges plaintiffs in a residential unlawful detainer action a $85 fee for any
“Original Filing” and an additional $112 when a non-default order is filed for a total filing fee of
$197. Fee Schedule, CLARK COUNTY, https://clark.wa.gov/clerk/fee-schedule (June 3, 2024). A
“[c]onvenience fee” is added when the plaintiff pays the filing fee by debit or credit card. Fee
Schedule, CLARK COUNTY, https://clark.wa.gov/clerk/fee-schedule (June 3, 2024). While Clark
County’s website does not indicate how much it charges for a convenience fee, the filing fee at
issue here was $204, indicating that the convenience fee was $7 ($204-$7 = $197).

Where the trial court finds for the landlord in an unlawful detainer action, the trial court
“may award statutory costs.” RCW 59.18.410(1). CR 54(d)(1) dictates, “Costs and disbursements
shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW 4.84 or by any other applicable statute.” RCW
4.84.010(1) allows the trial court to award “certain sums for the prevailing party’s expenses,”
including “[f]iling fees.”

4
No. 59699-7-II

filing fee included in costs awarded to JSP Haven should be $197, rather than the $204 JSP Haven

requested because the $7 convenience fee was not recoverable.

On May 10, JSP Haven filed a “Declaration Regarding Past Due Rent and Rental

Damages.” CP at 55. In the declaration, JSP Haven reiterated its previous request for missed rent

and utility payments for February, March, and April, and added a request for missed rent and utility

payments for May.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the judgment on May 10. At the hearing, Conner

stated that he was “disputing the amount of the judgment.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 7.

Specifically, for purposes of this appeal, Conner challenged the imposition of attorney fees as part

of the judgment and the inclusion of the $7 convenience fee as part of the filing fee.

1. May Damages

On the issue of whether JSP Haven could recover the rent and utility payments owed for

May, Conner argued that JSP Haven could not recovery any missed payments in March, April, or

May because those damages arose after JSP Haven filed its complaint.

The trial court stated that the complaint requested “amounts that might be due and owing

through the judgment and no judgment’s been entered.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 12. Based on

that language, the trial court granted JSP Haven damages on a pro rata basis through May 10.

2. Attorney fees

On the issue of attorney fees, Conner argued that JSP Haven should not be awarded

attorney fees because “judgment for possession” had been entered after Conner “failed to respond

to a pleading or other notice requiring a response authorized under this chapter.” RCW

59.18.290(3)(a). Conner’s argument distinguished an “appearance” from a “response” and

5
No. 59699-7-II

contended that because he did not challenge the issuance of a writ of restitution, he only appeared

and did not respond to any pleading or notice. 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 13, 14.

The trial court rejected Conner’s argument. The trial court explained:

[T]he Court is not inclined to find that there’s been no response [by Conner]. In
fact, today’s hearing . . . is pretty clear indication that the defense has some
argument that they want to make about a judgment. And I don’t believe that the
legislature’s language about response versus appearance would lend itself to saying
there’s no attorney’s fees in this situation. Given the posture of the parties thus far,
the Court does not find that [RCW 59.18.290’s] language about response applies
here and the Court does find that attorney’s fees are appropriate.

1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 10-11.

Conner responded that filing a notice of appearance was not a response within the meaning

of RCW 59.18.290(3)(a), but rather a response to the trial court’s assertion of jurisdiction over the

matter. According to Conner, a tenant responds if, after making a notice of appearance, they “file[]

a controversion of the allegations made by the [landlord]. At that point, there’s back and forth

between the defendant and the plaintiff as to the merits,” and “[t]hat’s when attorney fees would

be awarded.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 14. When, instead, a tenant simply files a notice of

appearance, “then they have the right to watch the procedure of the Court as it goes through the

case” and “a right to object to any exercise of jurisdiction that is unauthorized or excessive. For

example, when a judgment is being entered.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 14.

The trial court was not persuaded by Conner’s argument, stating that Conner had done

more than merely file a notice of appearance: “you have emphatically and consistently made

arguments and disputes regarding the judgment.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 16. “The show cause

hearing is an opportunity to see if there’s any issue of fact,” including “a potential judgment where

a judgment might be appropriate.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 16.

6
No. 59699-7-II

3. Convenience Fee

Finally, the trial court addressed Conner’s challenge to the $7 convenience fee added onto

the filing fee. Conner argued the trial court could only award JSP Haven statutorily authorized

costs, and that the $7 convenience fee was not statutorily authorized. The trial court rejected

Conner’s argument: “If anyone wants to object to [the convenience fee], I suggest you talk to the

Clerk about joining Odyssey, and then [filing is] free.” 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 22. The trial

court granted JSP Haven the requested convenience fee added onto the filing fee.

Following the hearing, the trial court granted JSP Haven a $9,822.99 judgment. Included

in that judgment was $750 in attorney fees and a $204 filing fee.

Conner appeals.

ANALYSIS

A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Unlawful detainer is a statutory proceeding intended to resolve who, between a landlord

and tenant, has the right to possession of property. Garrand v. Cornett, 31 Wn. App. 2d 428, 437,

550 P.3d 64 (2024). Both the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA), chapter 59.18

RCW, and the unlawful detainer statute, chapter 59.12 RCW, govern unlawful detainer actions in

Washington. Id. Because the RLTA and the unlawful detainer statute derogate the common law,

they are “strictly construed in the tenant’s favor.” Id. at 437, 442 n.4.

To initiate an unlawful detainer action, a landlord must first give the tenant written notice

of their intent to terminate the tenancy. RCW 59.12.030(3); RCW 59.18.057. If a tenant remains

in possession of the property once the notice deadline passes, the landlord can file a complaint for

unlawful detainer. See Randy Reynolds & Assocs., Inc. v. Harmon, 193 Wn.2d 143, 156, 437 P.3d

7
No. 59699-7-II

677 (2019). To physically evict the tenant, “a landlord may apply for a writ of restitution at the

same time as commencing the action or at any time thereafter.” Id. at 157.

The RLTA requires a show cause hearing before the trial court issues a writ of restitution.

RCW 59.18.370. At the show cause hearing, the tenant “may answer, orally or in writing, and

assert any legal or equitable defense or set-off arising out of the tenancy.” RCW 59.18.380. “[I]f

it shall appear that the plaintiff has the right to be restored to possession of the property, the court

shall enter an order directing the issuance of a writ of restitution . . . restoring to the plaintiff

possession of the property.” RCW 59.18.380. Additionally, if the court finds that “there is no

substantial issue of material fact of the right of the plaintiff to be granted other relief as prayed for

in the complaint and provided for in this chapter, the court may enter an order and judgment

granting so much of such relief as may be sustained by the proof.” RCW 59.18.380.

B. ATTORNEY FEES

At issue in this appeal is the provision of the RLTA allowing courts to award landlords

attorney fees. Where a landlord prevails in an unlawful detainer action, the trial court may

generally “award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the landlord.” RCW 59.18.290(3). However, “the

court shall not award attorneys’ fees . . . [i]f the judgment for possession is entered after the tenant

failed to respond to a pleading or other notice requiring a response authorized under this chapter.”

RCW 59.18.290(3)(a).

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Atkerson v. Dep’t of Child., Youth &

Fams., 4 Wn.3d 307, 315, 562 P.3d 1256 (2025). In interpreting statutes, we endeavor “‘to

ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.’” Id. (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell &

Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). In determining the legislature’s intent, “we

8
No. 59699-7-II

consider the statutory language in the context of ‘all that the Legislature has said in the statute and

related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.’” Id. (quoting

Campbell, 146 Wn.2d at 11). “‘Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language

used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous.’” Id. (quoting City of

Seattle v. State, 136 Wn.2d 693, 698, 965 P.2d 619 (1998)). “[I]f the statue’s meaning is plain on

its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent.”

Campbell, 146 Wn.2d at 9-10.

Only if a statute is ambiguous will we turn to legislative history or “other aids to statutory

construction.” Atkerson, 4 Wn.3d at 315. A statute is ambiguous if it is “susceptible to more than

one reasonable meaning.” Campbell, 146 Wn.2d at 12.

Conner argues that the trial court was precluded from awarding JSP Haven attorney fees

because after the trial court awarded JSP Haven possession of the property, Conner did not file an

answer to JSP Haven’s complaint or otherwise “dispute any facts or raise any factual defenses” to

JSP Haven’s claims. Br. of Appellant at 7. In other words, Conner argues he “failed to respond”

within the meaning of RCW 59.18.290(3)(a). We disagree.

Conner clearly responded to JSP Haven’s complaint when he objected to JSP Haven’s

proposed judgment. In its complaint, JSP Haven asked the trial court to “enter judgment against

[Conner] for unlawful detainer in the amount of rent and late charges owing at the time of judgment

and for reasonable attorney fees and costs in this proceeding.” CP at 6. At the judgment hearing,

Conner challenged not only JSP Haven’s attorney fees request, but the amount of the judgment

itself, arguing that JSP Haven was not entitled to recover missed rent and utility payments that

accrued after JSP Haven filed its complaint. See 1 VRP (May 10, 2024) at 7 (“I’m also disputing

9
No. 59699-7-II

the amount of the judgment.”). Thus, Conner “respond[ed] to a pleading . . . authorized under [the

RLTA].” RCW 59.18.290(3)(a). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in awarding JSP Haven

attorney fees.

C. CONVENIENCE FEE

Conner also challenges the trial court’s award of costs to JSP Haven. Specifically, Conner

argues that the trial court erred in awarding $204 to JSP Haven for a filing fee because the amount

included both the filing fee itself and a $7 convenience fee.

The County charges plaintiffs in residential unlawful detainer actions a $85 fee for any

“Original Filing.” Fee Schedule, CLARK COUNTY, https://clark.wa.gov/clerk/fee-schedule (June

3, 2024); RCW 36.18.020(2)(a), (5)(c). If the plaintiff subsequently files a non-default judgment

or order, the County charges an additional $112.00 filing fee. Fee Schedule, CLARK COUNTY,

https://clark.wa.gov/clerk/fee-schedule (June 3, 2024); RCW 36.18.012(5). Because JSP Haven

obtained a judgment against Conner, JSP Haven incurred a $197 filing fee.

A “[c]onvenience fee” is added onto the filing fee when the plaintiff pays the filing fee by

using a debit or credit card. Fee Schedule, CLARK COUNTY, https://clark.wa.gov/clerk/fee-

schedule (June 3, 2024). Given that JSP Haven paid a $204 filing fee, the convenience fee

amounted to $7.

Where the trial court finds for the landlord in an unlawful detainer action, the trial court

“may award statutory costs.” RCW 59.18.410(1). CR 54(d)(1) dictates, “Costs and disbursements

shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW 4.84 or by any other applicable statute.” RCW

4.84.010(1) allows the trial court to award “certain sums for the prevailing party’s expenses,”

including “[f]iling fees.”

10
No. 59699-7-II

Conner argues “that the convenience fee is not a ‘statutory cost’ because it does not appear

anywhere in a statute, and it is not mandatory.” Br. of Appellant at 44. We agree.

RCW 59.18.410(1) allows the trial court to “award statutory costs.” CR 54(d)(1) states

that “[c]osts . . . shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW 4.84 or by any other applicable

statute.” RCW 4.84.010 lists the “[c]osts allowed to [a] prevailing party” and includes “[f]iling

fees.” RCW 4.84.010(1). However, neither RCW 59.18.410(1) nor RCW 4.84.010(1) include

convenience fees as a recoverable cost. Rather, the convenience fee is added on top of a statutorily

allowed filing fee. See RCW 36.18.020(2)(a), (5)(c), .012(5).

Because “[c]osts . . . shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW 4.84,” and RCW

4.84.010(1) does not include convenience fees in its list of recoverable costs, the $7 convenience

fee was not statutorily authorized. CR 54(d)(1). Thus, the trial court erred by awarding JSP Haven

the convenience fee as a statutory cost.

D. ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL

JSP Haven requests attorney fees and costs on appeal pursuant to RAP 18.1 and RCW

59.18.410(1) and .290. We “will award attorney fees to the prevailing party ‘only on the basis of

a private agreement, a statute, or a recognized ground of equity.’” Tedford v. Guy, 13 Wn. App.

2d 1, 17, 462 P.3d 869 (2020) (quoting Equitable Life Leasing Corp. v. Cedarbrook, Inc., 52 Wn.

App. 497, 506, 761 P.2d 77 (1988)).

RCW 59.18.410(1) allows the court to award “statutory costs” and “reasonable attorneys’

fees as provided in RCW 59.18.290.” RCW 59.18.290 allows for the prevailing party to recover

attorney fees and costs when a landlord has successfully removed a tenant or has obtained a

11
No. 59699-7-II

judgment restoring possession of the property to the landlord. RCW 59.18.290(1), (3). Here, JSP

Haven is the prevailing party and is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

JSP Haven also requests that we award attorney fees on appeal as a sanction against Conner

for filing a frivolous appeal. Because attorney fees on appeal are being granted based on RCW

59.18.290(3), we do not address this additional argument.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s award of attorney fees. However, we reverse the award of the

convenience fee to JSP Haven as a statutory cost. We also grant JSP Haven its attorney fees and

costs on appeal.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

Lee, J.
We concur:

Maxa, J.

Cruser, C.J.