Appeal centers on whether trial court sufficiently found statutory relocation and segregated attorney fees

Appellant told the panel he believed the trial court awarded attorney fees under RCW 59.18.085(2) but that the record contains no findings that would support a subsection (3) relocation‑assistance award; he noted the court's conclusions cite subsections (1) and (2) but omit subsection (3), creating tension with the award of "actual damages."

"If you look at subsection 3 ... the court didn't actually say actual damages," a panel judge observed while Rankin said the award of actual damages suggested the trial court had in effect treated a subsection (3) violation as established, even if not expressly found. Rankin argued the trial court also failed to segregate attorney fees between negligence/common law claims and statutory landlord‑tenant claims and that detailed findings were necessary to support the fee calculation.

Respondent's counsel said the statutory and common‑law elements were intertwined and that the trial court's inability to segregate fees reflected that overlap; the panel noted it was "unusual" to address fee awards without seeing the underlying fee request. The court asked whether vacating treble damages under subsection (2) would necessarily require vacating the fee award, and counsel debated whether other statutory subsections or common‑law principles could independently support fees.

The court reserved decision. The appeal will turn on close reading of the trial court's findings and whether appellate relief must vacate or modify the fee and actual‑damages awards.