Facts:

In a consolidation of 3 cases, petitioners Morin, Gutz, and Matia Investment Funds Inc. properly initiated lawsuits against respondents Burris, Johnson, and the City of Tacoma respectively. In all three cases the respondents failed to file answers or formally appear in court when actions where brought against them, resulting in the successful motion for default judgment by the petitioners. The respondents moved to vacate the default judgment, claiming they had informally appeared and were entitled to notice of default proceedings. In the Morin and Matia Investment Funds cases the default judgments were vacated in their respective Superior Courts, while in the Gutz case the motion to vacate was denied. Upon appeal the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court rulings in Morin and Matia Investment Funds. In the Gutz case, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court holding the respondent appeared through the insurer, entitling him to notice before entry of the order of default and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the default judgment. The cases were consolidated for review by the Supreme Court of Washington.

Questions:

Does merely showing informal intent to defend before a case is filed, through prelitigation communication, satisfy the substantial compliance and appearance requirement in the formal litigation process?

Conclusion:

Justice Tom Chambers’ opinion for the Court held that informal appearance, according to the substantial compliance doctrine for formal litigation procedures long held by the Court, a mere intent to defend, whether before or after a case is filed, is not enough because acknowledgment that a dispute exist must be made in court. Since the respondents in the Morin and Matia Investment Funds cases did not acknowledge the dispute in court, they were not entitled to notice of the default judgment hearing. Thus, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial courts for reentry of default judgments. In the Gutz case, the record showed the petitioners counsel actively concealed the fact that summons and complaint had been filed against the respondent. The trial court appeared to have missed this issue, so the case was remanded for further consideration.

Docket No. 77291-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 53950-7)

Petitioner: Sherri Morin, et ux.

(Counsel: Thomas F. Gallagher, Stephen H. Good Jr., and Joseph P. Wilson)

Respondent: Bonnie Burris, et ux., et al.

(Counsel: Jeffrey Twersky, Marilee C. Erikson, Robin Jenkinson, Anne L. Spangler, Thomas L. Schwartz, and Katrina C. Thornock)

Other Parties: Desire C. Gutz, et al. v. Stanley B. Johnson, et ux.; Matia Investment Fund, Inc. v. City of Tacoma

Argument: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, June 28th, 2007

Prevailing Party: Sherri Morin, et ux. (Petitioner)

Vote: 6-3

Opinion: 160 Wn.2d 745 (2007)

Court: Alexander3 Court (2005-2007)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Bridge

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson