Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Norton, No. 87320-2-I (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Washington (WA)
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Affirmed
ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLC DBA VERDE..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 734359Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION,SEE WA R GEN GR 14.1UNPUBLISHED OPINIONCourt of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLCDBA VERDE ESTERRA PARK, Respondent,v.JUSTIN NORTON and All OtherOccupants at 2808 Calder Ave NE, Apt8117, Redmond, WA 98052, Appellant.No. 87320-2-I|03/16/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.OpinionCoburn, J.*1 Justin Norton's landlord Verde Esterra Park brought anunlawful detainer action against him under the ResidentialLandlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA), chapter 59.18 RCW,for his failure to pay rent. Following a hearing, a trial courtcommissioner determined that Norton was in default of therental agreement by failing to pay $42,299.00 in rent and thatVerde Esterra was entitled to possession of the property underan immediate writ of restitution. Norton appeals, arguing thatthe trial court ignored statutory requirements1 and deniedhim a fair hearing. We affirm the trial court.FACTSIn June 2022 Norton entered a lease agreement for anapartment unit at Verde Esterra Park.On May 3, 2023, Norton entered into a temporary paymentplan with Verde Esterra through the Eviction Resolution PilotProgram (ERPP) wherein he agreed to pay back rent andutilities in the total amount of $2,389.23 in three consecutivemonthly payments of $796.41 starting June 15, 2023. Nortonagreed that if Verde Esterra did not receive any payment dueunder the ERPP agreement on or before the due date, “that allpayments shall be accelerated, and all outstanding paymentsshall be immediately due and owing.” The agreement statedthat “[l]andlord's failure to strictly enforce the terms of thisagreement or to accept partial payments shall not constituteany waiver.” Further, the payment plan expressly did notinclude the current rent and specified that “current rent mustalso be timely paid per the terms of the lease or rentalagreement.”On September 12, 2023, Verde Esterra served a 30-day noticeto Norton requiring him to pay $10,746.78 in owed rent or tovacate the premises. The notice stated that Norton is “not incompliance with the terms of the lease agreement by failing topay rent and/or utilities and/or recurring or periodic chargesthat are past due.” The notice itemized the monthly unpaidbase rent and utilities from May through September in 2023.The notice stated that “payment must be made pursuant tothe terms of the rental agreement or by nonelectronic meansincluding but not limited to, cashier's check, money order, orother certified funds.”*2 On January 4, 2024, Verde Esterra commenced anunlawful detainer action after Norton failed to comply withthe 30-day notice. Verde Esterra completed service of thesummons and complaint to Norton by alternate means.A show cause hearing was held before a superior courtcommissioner on September 30, 2024. Verde Esterrapresented the 30-day notice and a declaration signed January4, 2024 by Verde Esterra community manager StefanieHosterman. In the declaration, Hosterman stated that Nortonhad not complied with the 30-day notice and remained inpossession of the premises as of January 4.At the September hearing Hosterman testified that Nortonstill had not paid rent since her January 4 declaration orvacated the premises as shown by his “Fob activity” andemail messages that he sends through Verde Esterra's system.Hosterman testified that at the time of hearing Norton owed$42,299 in back rent. It was undisputed at the hearing thatNorton had not made any payments toward the $42,299amount. Norton claimed at the hearing that Verde Esterra
ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLC DBA VERDE..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2blocked him from making his payments through its onlinepayment portal. Hosterman testified that Norton's lease didnot require rent payments to be made through the online portaland that once rent payments are late as of the sixth of themonth, Verde Esterra can no longer accept online paymentsthrough its portal and that the 30-day notice specified thatNorton must pay the back due rent by certified funds, cashier'scheck, or money order. Hosterman reminded Norton of thisin an April 2024 email, which Norton submitted as part ofhis motion to dismiss prior to the hearing. In the email,Hosterman also reminded Norton that this information wasoutlined in his lease and also on the notice to pay or vacate.The commissioner found that Norton failed to comply withthe 30-day notice and that he was in default of his leaseagreement by failing to pay rent in the amount of $42,299.00and failing to vacate the premises. The court concluded thatVerde Esterra was entitled to possession and issued a writ ofrestitution.2Norton filed a motion for reconsideration and submittedevidence of a check payment made to Verde Esterra for onemonth's rent in the amount of $2,326.68 on August 21, 2023.The court denied the motion.3Norton subsequently filed a notice of appeal to this court. Hethen filed an emergency motion to stay the writ of restitutionpending the outcome of the instant appeal. On October 25,2024, a pro tem superior court commissioner granted thestay. On October 28, the same pro tem commissioner suasponte reconsidered the order and required Nelson to post asupersedeas bond as a condition to his right to a stay.DISCUSSIONWrit of Restitution*3 “In Washington, a tenant must pay the rental amountprovided in a rental agreement and comply with allobligations imposed by the applicable provisions of law.”Hous. Auth. of County of King v. Knight, 4 Wn.3d 324, 329,563 P.3d 1058 (2025) (citing RCW 59.18.130). A landlordmay commence an unlawful detainer action under the RLTAif a tenant breaches a rental agreement by failing to maketimely rental payments. Sherwood Auburn LLC v. Pinzon, 24Wn. App. 2d 664, 670-71, 521 P.3d 212 (2022) (citing RCW59.18.130, .180(2)). A residential tenant is liable for unlawfuldetainer if they continue in possession of a rental property“after a default in the payment of rent, and after notice inwriting requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent orthe surrender of the detained premises ... [and the request] hasremained uncomplied with ... for the period of 14 days afterservice.” RCW 59.12.030(3); see also RCW 59.18.650(2)(a).An unlawful detainer is a statutory summary proceedingthat provides expedited resolution of claims of possession.Knight, 4 Wn.3d at 329. “In so doing, [an unlawful detainer]‘relieves a landlord of having to file an expensive and lengthycommon law action of ejectment.’ ” Sherwood Auburn, 24Wn. App. 2d at 671 (quoting FPA Crescent Assocs. v. Jamie'sLLC, 190 Wn. App. 666, 675, 360 P.3d 934 (2015)). Unlawfuldetainer is a narrow action that is limited to the question ofpossession and only related to issues like restitution of thepremises and rent. Munden v. Hazelrigg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45,711 P.2d 295 (1985). The RLTA and the unlawful detainerstatute, chapter 59.12 RCW, govern unlawful detainer actionsin Washington and are strictly construed in the tenant's favor.Garrand v. Cornett, 31 Wn. App. 2d 428, 437, 550 P.3d 64(2024).A landlord must comply with statutory requirements toutilize the unlawful detainer statute's favorable provisions.Sherwood Auburn, 24 Wn. App. 2d at 671 (citing Hous. Auth.of City of Everett v. Terry, 114 Wn.2d 558, 563-64, 789 P.2d745 (1990)). After serving notice, a landlord may initiate anunlawful detainer proceeding by filing and serving the tenantwith a complaint and summons. Knight, 4 Wn.3d at 329(citing RCW 59.18.365; RCW 59.12.060, .080). The landlordmay then request a writ of restitution and note the request fora show cause hearing to request possession of the propertyon an expedited basis. Webster v. Litz, 18 Wn. App. 2d 248,252, 491 P.3d 171 (2021) (citing Faciszewski v. Brown, 187Wn.2d 308, 314, 386 P.3d 711 (2016)); RCW 59.12.090;RCW 59.18.370, .380. “To obtain a writ of restitution ata show cause hearing, the landlord must establish by apreponderance of the evidence that the tenant has violated orbreached material terms of the lease and, thus, the landlordis entitled to immediate possession of the property pending afinal judgment.” Webster, 18 Wn. App. 2d at 252-53. The trialcourt examines the parties and witnesses orally to determinethe merits of the complaint and answer and either denies themotion or orders the issuance of the writ. Id. at 253 n.9.; RCW59.18.380. “[T]he landlord can [then] deliver the writ to thesheriff, who will serve it on the tenant.” Randy Reynolds &Assocs., Inc. v. Harmon, 193 Wn.2d 143, 158, 437 P.3d 677(2019) (citing RCW 59.18.390(1)).
ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLC DBA VERDE..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3We review the trial court's findings of fact in a showcause hearing in an unlawful detainer action for substantialevidence, and we review conclusions of law de novo.Garrand, 31 Wn. App. 2d at 439 (citing Tedford v. Guy, 13Wn. App. 2d 1, 12, 462 P.3d 869 (2020). There is substantialevidence when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence topersuade a fair-minded, rational person that a trial court'sfinding is true. Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wn. App. 816, 825, 351P.3d 214 (2015). Unchallenged findings of fact are verities onappeal. Id.*4 We review a trial court's ruling on a motion forreconsideration for abuse of discretion. Go2Net, Inc. v. C IHost, Inc., 115 Wn. App. 73, 88, 60 P.3d 1245 (2003). “Atrial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestlyunreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or untenablereasons.” Id.Here, Norton does not assign error in his opening brief to anyof the trial court's findings of fact, thus rendering them veritieson appeal. See Pham, 187 Wn. App. at 825. The record andthe unchallenged findings of fact support the court's decisionto issue the writ of restitution. Verde Esterra served Nortonwith a notice to pay or vacate and a summons and complaintin compliance with statutory requirements. Norton failed tocomply with the notice by refusing to pay rent due under hislease agreement and by failing to vacate the premises. SeeRCW 59.12.030(3); RCW 59.18.650(2)(a). On this record thetrial court properly granted the writ of restitution.In support of his motion for reconsideration, Nortonsubmitted evidence of past rent payment as a “critical fact”for the court's consideration. This was limited to evidence ofa check payment for one month's rent4 made to Verde Esterraon August 21, 2023, which pre-dated the 30-day notice to payor vacate served upon Norton in September.5 Norton argueson appeal that the trial court failed to consider that VerdeEsterra waived the right to seek a writ of restitution for non-payment of rent by accepting this partial rent payment.Norton's legal citations do not support this proposition. Wehold pro se litigants to the same standard as attorneys. Inre Est. of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23(2019). RAP 10.3 provides parties with briefing instructionsthat are necessary for this court's review. We need not considerpro se arguments that do not comply with RAP 10.3. Statev. Marintorres, 93 Wn. App. 442, 452, 969 P.2d 501 (1999).RAP 10.3(a)(6) states that it is the appellant's burden toprovide pertinent authority to support their arguments. Wedo not consider conclusory assertions unsupported by legalauthority. West v. Thurston County, 168 Wn. App. 162, 187,275 P.3d 1200 (2012). A party's citations to legal authority insupport of their position on appeal should relate to the issuespresented for review and support the proposition for whichthat authority is cited. Litho Color, Inc. v. Pac. Employers Ins.Co., 98 Wn. App. 286, 305, 991 P.2d 638 (1999).Norton contends that “ ‘[i]f the landlord accepts a partialpayment...without a written reservation of rights, the landlordwaives the right to proceed’ ” with eviction. Norton assertsthis quoted language is stated in RCW 59.18.410. Thislanguage is not in RCW 59.18.410.6 We have previouslyheld that “[a] landlord does not waive his or her right toproceed with an unlawful detainer action by accepting onlypartial rent.” Hwang v. McMahill, 103 Wn. App. 945, 953,15 P.3d 172 (2000). Moreover, it was undisputed at the showcause hearing that Norton had not made rent payments sincethe September notice, which detailed unpaid rental amountsspanning across several months. The court's unchallengedfinding that Norton is in default to Verde Esterra in theamount of $42,299.00 is a verity on appeal. Norton's defaultconstitutes a violation of the RLTA. See RCW 59.18.130.*5 Norton further relies on RCW 59.18.240 to arguethat by proceeding with eviction after accepting partialpayment—notwithstanding that the fact he presented noevidence of partial payment during the show cause hearing—his landlord demonstrated bad faith and retaliation. Nortonmisunderstands RCW 59.18.240, which defines actions thatmay constitute retaliatory actions by a landlord where a tenantis in compliance with the RLTA. RCW 59.18.240 protectstenants who (1) are in compliance with the RLTA and makegood faith and lawful complaints to governmental authorityconcerning the failure of the landlord to maintain or operatethe premises in substantial compliance with the governinglaw or (2) assert or enforce their rights and remedies underthe RLTA, and the landlord responds through reprisal orretaliatory action or threats thereof. This statute does notapply to the facts of this case.Norton, citing RCW 59.18.620, argues that the trial courtfailed in its issuance of the writ of restitution to consider hispurported “good faith efforts” to comply with his lease thatwere allegedly thwarted by Verde Esterra's restriction of hisability to make rent payments through its online portal. Again,Norton cites the statute for language that it does not contain.7See RCW 59.18.620 (providing definitions for terms under
ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLC DBA VERDE..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4time-limited eviction moratorium statutes RCW 59.18.625and 59.18.630). Norton cites no evidence other than his owntestimony that he made thwarted attempts to pay back rent inresponse to the September 30-day notice. The trial court as thefact finder was free to deem Norton's self-protestations as notcredible. See Seattle Police Dep't v. Jones, 18 Wn. App. 2d931, 945, 496 P.3d 1204 (2021) (“We defer to the fact finderto weigh the evidence and judge witness credibility.”).Finally, Norton does not offer any persuasive basis tochallenge the constitutionality of his unlawful detainerproceeding that resulted in the court's issuance of thewrit restitution based on his non-payment of rent. Nortonclaims that the trial court improperly shifted the burdento him as a pro se litigant in violation of due process.Summary proceedings in a show cause hearing, whichprovide opportunity for complaint and answer and a hearingbefore a judge, do not violate a tenant's right to due process.Carlstrom v. Hanline, 98 Wn. App. 780, 789-90, 990 P.2d986 (2000); Tedford, 13 Wn. App. 2d at 10-11; Leda v.Whisnand, 150 Wn. App. 69, 81, 207 P.3d 468 (2009).We have long held that “[a] trial court must hold pro separties to the same standards to which it holds attorneys.”Edwards v. Le Duc, 157 Wn. App. 455, 460, 238 P.3d 1187(2010) (citing Westberg v. All-Purpose Structures, Inc., 86Wn. App. 405, 411, 936 P.2d 1175 (1997)). At the showcause hearing, Norton had the opportunity to dispute VerdeEsterra's evidence that it was entitled to possess the propertyunder the applicable statutes. See RCW 59.12.030(3); RCW59.18.650(2)(a). His failure to do so does not constitute a dueprocess violation.We conclude that the trial court did not err in ordering theissuance of a writ of restitution.Motion to StayThe unlawful detainer statute prohibits a stay pendingreview unless the aggrieved party executes and files asupersedeas bond set by the court. RCW 59.12.200. UnderRCW 59.12.200, an appealing party who desires a stay “shallexecute and file a bond, with two or more sufficient suretiesto be approved by the judge, ... and to pay all rents and otherdamages justly accruing to the plaintiff during the pendencyof the proceeding.” RAP 8.1 conditions an appealing party's“right to stay enforcement of a ... decision affecting real ...property” on “[the] filing in the trial court a supersedeas bondor cash, or alternate security approved by the trial court” andwhere it is “prohibited by statute.” RAP 8.1(b)(2). A stay bondon appeal halts the writ of restitution on the condition that thedefendant pay “all rents and other damages justly accruing tothe plaintiff during the pendency of the proceeding.” RCW59.12.200. The purpose of the bond is to “secure the [owner]against losses during the pendency of the proceedings whenthe [occupant] continues to occupy the premises.” Hous.Auth. v. Pleasant, 126 Wn. App. 382, 390, 109 P.3d 422(2005).*6 Norton argues that Verde Esterra acted in bad faith byfailing to comply with the trial court's stay order by refusinghis monthly rent payments. His argument is not supported inthe record.Here, on October 25, 2024, a pro tem commissioner initiallygranted Norton's motion to stay the writ of restitution pendingappeal provided that Norton kept current on rent paymentsstarting in November 2024. The record supports that threedays later, on October 28, the pro tem commissioner suasponte reconsidered the order and determined that it shouldhave required Norton to post a supersedeas bond consistentwith RCW 59.12.200 and RAP 8.1.8 See RAP 7.2(h). Thecommissioner directed Verde Esterra's counsel to schedule ahearing to determine the bond amount. This hearing and anysubsequent orders were not designated in the record for thiscourt's review.9 However, the parties do not seem to disputethat a bond amount was determined.In his opening brief, Norton neither acknowledges norchallenges the merits of the commissioner's current stayorder entered on October 28 but instead asserts that emailsfrom Verde Esterra's counsel and manager Hosterman refusedmonthly payments in violation of the court's former stay orderbased on the allegedly false claim that the court ordereda bond. The email from Verde Esterra's counsel is datedOctober 30, 2024 and stated that the commissioner's orderrequired a bond for “100% of the damages suffered by[Verde Esterra] in the event your appeal is unsuccessful.”Hosterman's email is dated October 31, 2024 and stated VerdeEsterra's position to not accept payments from Norton “lessthan the full balance owed” and that it “will be continuingthe legal process.” Both emails were sent after the court'supdated order requiring Norton to post a supersedeas bond tostay the writ of restitution. Because Norton's argument is notsupported by the record, we need not consider it further.We affirm.10
ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLC DBA VERDE..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5WE CONCUR:All CitationsNot Reported in Pac. Rptr., 2026 WL 734359Footnotes1Appearing pro se, Norton quotes fictitious statutory language, cites to inapplicable statutes, and relies oncases that do not exist. In the event that such fake and non-existent legal authority was generated by artificialintelligence (AI), we note this as an acknowledgment and a warning. While AI may be of assistance to parties,especially pro se litigants navigating court rules, statutes, and case law, everyone, including pro se litigants,are responsible to confirm their pleadings, motions, briefs, and other filings are accurate and do not containany citations that are invented or hallucinated by generative AI or any other source. See RAP 10.3(a)(6);West v. Thurston County, 168 Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P.3d 1200 (2012). We hold pro se litigants to the samestandard as attorneys. In re Est. of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d 262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23 (2019).2The commissioner reserved as to a money judgment because Verde Esterra relied on an alternate methodof service.3Norton does not assign error or present argument as to the denial of the motion for reconsideration. SeeEscude v. King County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 117 Wn. App. 183, 190 n.4, 69 P.3d 895 (2003) (“It is wellsettled that a party's failure to assign error to or provide argument and citation to authority in support of anassignment of error, as required under RAP 10.3, precludes appellate consideration of an alleged error.”).4It is not clear from the record for which month of rent the check was intended to cover.5To show that he made a partial payment prior to the September 30-day notice, Norton also cites to an exhibitthat he raised in a motion to dismiss that he filed after his notice of appeal to this court. Because this exhibitwas not part of the record before the superior court commissioner at the show cause hearing, we do notconsider it. See Egbert v. Jorgensen, 36 Wn. App. 2d 1, 22, 580 P.3d 1002 (2025) (“A ‘show cause hearing’is a summary proceeding where the superior court evaluates the evidence presented by the parties anddecides ‘the issue of possession pending a lawsuit’ ”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harmon,193 Wn.2d at 157)).6See RCW 59.18.410(1) (governing entry of judgment following determination of tenant's liability in forcibleentry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer action); .410(2) (providing right to tenant for restoration of tenancyafter default in payment of rent within five days of entry of judgment by following certain procedures); .410(3)(governing stay of enforcement of writ of restitution following entry of judgment for restitution of premisesand forfeiture of tenancy due to nonpayment of rent and court-ordered payment plans); .410(4) (governingissuance of ex parte stay of writ of restitution); .410(5) (“In all other cases the judgment may be enforcedimmediately. If a writ of restitution shall have been executed prior to judgment no further writ or execution forthe premises shall be required.”); .410(6) (“This section also applies if the writ of restitution is issued pursuantto a final judgment entered after a show cause hearing conducted in accordance with RCW 59.18.380.”).7Norton also refers to a case name and attached citation that do not appear to exist separate or together.(Citing “Housing Authority of Grant County v. Newby, 13 Wn. App. 2d 107, 462 P.3d 897 (2020)”). We notethat Norton also proffered a non-existent case citation in a filing of “supplemental authority.” (Citing “Norwoodv. Jacobs, 145 Wn.2d 655 (2002)”).
ESTERRA COMMONS VENTURE, LLC DBA VERDE..., Not Reported in Pac.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.68In his reply brief, Norton seems to challenge the trial court's authority to modify its stay order pending appealto require a supersedeas bond. We do not address arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs. Buddv. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 21 Wn. App. 2d 56, 80-81, 505 P.3d 120 (2022).9The appellant has the burden of perfecting the record on appeal to ensure that the appellate court is providedwith all necessary evidence to decide the presented issues. Tacoma S. Hosp., LLC v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co., 19Wn. App. 2d 210, 220, 494 P.3d 450 (2021); see RAP 9.2, 9.6; see also Dalton M, LLC v. N. Cascade Tr.Servs., Inc., 2 Wn.3d 36, 53, 534 P.3d 339 (2023) (stating that appellate court generally cannot make factualfindings and will not seek to when presented with an incomplete record and insufficient briefing regardingelements of a claim).10Norton requests statutory penalties and sanctions under RAP 18.9(a) based on arguments addressed above.Because he does not provide a legitimate basis for a penalty award or sanctions, we deny his requests.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access