Appearance, Default, & Judgment In WA State

Under Washington law, what are the default and judgment notice requirements when the responding party's appearance is in dispute? Here’s my point of view (NOTE: please read our DISCLAIMER before proceeding).

POLICY: DEFAULT JUDGMENTS: DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT

In the State of Washington, default judgments are supported by the policy that an orderly system of justice requires compliance with judicial process and finality to judicial proceedings.  Ellison v. Process Systems inc. Const. Co., 112 Wash. App. 636, 50 P.3d 658 (Div. 3 2002) (quoting Griggs v. Averbeck Reality, Inc., 92 Wash.2d 576, 581, 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)).  

Moreover, the appellate courts have observed that “the need for a responsive and responsible legal system mandates that parties comply with a judicial summons” in upholding default orders and judgments.  Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 599 P.2d 1289 (1979); Norton v. Brown, 99 Wn.App. 118, 992 P.2d 1019 (1999).  

As our Supreme Court has recently noted: “Litigation is inherently formal.  All parties are burdened by formal time limits and procedures.”  Rosander v. Nightrunners Transport, Ltd., 147 Wn.App. 392, 196 P.3d 711 (Div. II 2008) (court affirmed trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate default order and judgment).  Ultimately, the decision on a motion to vacate an order of default or a default judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial court.  Estate of Stevens, 94 Wn. App. 20, 971 P.2d 58 (Div. II 1999).

NOTICE REQUIREMENT

In light of the foregoing, the relevant notice requirement for default and judgment pursuant to Civil Rule 55(a)(3) is generally as follows:

[A]ny party who has not appeared before the motion for default and supporting affidavit are filed is not entitled to a notice of the motion… .

Civil Rule 55(a)(3) (emphasis added). NOTE: There is an exception for attorneys of record, however, for the purposes of this article, I presume there are none. See id.

APPEARANCE

Whether a party has ‘appeared’ ”is generally a question of intention, as evidenced by acts or conduct, such as the indication of a purpose to defend or a request for affirmative action from the court, constituting a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.” City of Des Moines v. $81,231, 87 Wn. App. 689, 696, 943 P.2d 669 (Div. I 1997)(emphasis added).  

Keep in mind that CR 55 is intended to protect those parties who, although delaying in the formal sense by failing to file pleadings within the prescribed period, have otherwise indicated to the moving party a clear purpose to defend the lawsuit. Ellison, 112, Wash. App. 636, 642, 50 P.3d 658 (Div. 3 2002) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted).

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE DOCTRINE

As an aside, the Supreme Court narrowed the substantial-compliance doctrine in 2007 when it held that “[p]arties cannot substantially comply with the appearance rules through prelitigation contacts.  Parties must take some action acknowledging that the dispute is in court before they are entitled to a notice of default judgment hearing… .”  Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745, 161 P.3d 956 (2007).

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced Washington State Attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. Please note: the information contained in this article is not offered as legal advice and will not form an attorney-client relationship with either this author or Williams Law Group, PS; please see our DISCLAIMER.

–gw