Panel questions whether notice of appearance equals an 'answer' and whether court had personal jurisdiction

The panel repeatedly asked whether the tenant's pro se notice of appearance and subsequent filings constituted an "answer" for purposes of jurisdiction and fee-award bars. The judges noted Division 1 authority and a recent Division 1 Dwyer opinion and asked whether Nagash v. Sawyer controlled; tenant counsel responded that Nagash is directly on point and holds a pro se notice that only describes payment efforts is not an answer for jurisdictional purposes.

Judges also pressed both sides on the timing of the writ of restitution and whether the tenant's later tender or motion to quash constituted an affirmative submission to jurisdiction. "If it's a tie, the tie goes to the tenant," Presiding Judge Lawrence Berry observed when discussing canons of remedial statutory construction, but the panel also highlighted gaps in the record about service and whether a money judgment validly attached to the tenant. The transcript shows these jurisdictional and timing disputes were among the central issues the court asked the parties to brief further and decide on appeal.