Facts: Petitioner Lorena Contreras filed suit against the respondent city of Sunnyside in the Superior Court for Yakima County seeking the return of assets that had been seized by the city from her deceased son as assets used in drug dealing pursuant to Washington Revised Code §69.50.505. The trial court entered a mixed judgment, finding that the automobile and a portion of the money that had been seized were not subject to forfeiture but that the preponderance of the money had been properly seized by the city of Sunnyside. As this represented three quarters of the value of the property that had initially been seized, the trial court ruled that Contreras had not substantially prevailed for purposes of §69.50.505(6) and therefore was not entitled to reimbursement of her attorney’s fees. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Contreras appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does the return of a portion of the seized property entitle Contreras to recover her attorney’s fees under §69.50.505(6)?

Conclusion: Justice Chambers’ opinion for the Court held that as §69.50.505(6) was not intended to serve as a prevailing party statute (as it does not allow the state to recover attorney’s fees in cases in which it prevails) but rather was intended to protect individuals from having their property wrongfully seized by the state, a plaintiff in an asset forfeiture case should be considered to have substantially prevailed and therefore be entitled to recover attorney’s fees if they prevailed with regard to any significant issue. However, as §69.50.505(6) was also not intended to allow recovery of attorney’s fees incurred solely for unsuccessful claims, the Court ordered that Contreras’s attorney’s fees be apportioned and that she recover only those associated with her successful claims for the return of the automobile and the smaller portion of the money.

Docket No. 82531-9 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 26432-7)

Petitioner: Lorena Contreras

(Counsel: Todd Harms)

Respondent: City of Sunnyside

(Counsel: Anthony F. Menke, Quinn N. Plant, and Kirk A. Ehlis)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:30pm

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

Decided: Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Prevailing Party: City of Sunnyside (Respondent)

Vote: 8-1

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders
(Dissent)

Chambers
(Majority)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens