context: We have phrased this rule slightly differently in two cases.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 36 Wn. App. 854, 854
citation_a.parenthetical: test for determining whether trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaim in unlawful detainer action is whether "resolution of the [tenant's] damage claim is . . . necessary to determine the right of possession"
citation_a.sentence: See First Union Mgmt., Inc., 36 Wn. App. at 854 (test for determining whether trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaim in unlawful detainer action is whether “resolution of the [tenant’s] damage claim is . . . necessary to determine the right of possession”); see also Int’l Raw Materials, Ltd., 96 Wn. App. at 438 (in unlawful detainer action, trial court may resolve any issues necessarily related to the parties’ dispute over possession of the property).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 96 Wn. App. 438, 438
citation_b.parenthetical: in unlawful detainer action, trial court may resolve any issues necessarily related to the parties' dispute over possession of the property
citation_b.sentence: See First Union Mgmt., Inc., 36 Wn. App. at 854 (test for determining whether trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaim in unlawful detainer action is whether “resolution of the [tenant’s] damage claim is . . . necessary to determine the right of possession”); see also Int’l Raw Materials, Ltd., 96 Wn. App. at 438 (in unlawful detainer action, trial court may resolve any issues necessarily related to the parties’ dispute over possession of the property).