David Cullerton, V Community Action Council Of Lewis, Mason,etal
47582-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- In Jan 2011 CAC weatherized Cullerton’s mobile home, including installing new dryer ducting; a June 2011 fire destroyed the home.
- Cullerton sued CAC for negligence, alleging CAC’s duct installation caused the fire. He later proceeded pro se.
- CAC moved for summary judgment, submitting an expert (Fitz) saying ducting did not cause the fire. Cullerton opposed with an unsigned Norton investigator report and an unsworn letter from electrician Heil. Trial court considered the unsworn materials and granted summary judgment for CAC.
- Cullerton moved for reconsideration and later filed a CR 60(b)(3) motion attaching a second Heil letter signed under penalty of perjury asserting improper installation caused lint buildup and the fire.
- The trial court denied reconsideration, stating it had reviewed all pleadings; the Court of Appeals reviewed the record and the newly sworn Heil letter.
- Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment because the sworn Heil letter on reconsideration created genuine issues of negligence and causation that the trial court had effectively considered but then wrongly denied reconsideration on.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper given evidence submitted | Cullerton: Norton report, first Heil letter, and testimony created triable issues on proximate cause | CAC: Unsigned/unsworn materials inadmissible on summary judgment; no evidence ducting caused fire | Court: Trial court did not err granting summary judgment because unsworn Norton report and first Heil letter are inadmissible and did not show causation ([CR 56(e)]) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying reconsideration after new sworn Heil letter | Cullerton: Second Heil letter (signed under penalty of perjury) created genuine issues of negligence and causation and warranted reconsideration | CAC: Trial court could decline to consider new evidence on reconsideration as not newly discovered | Court: Trial court abused discretion because its order indicated it considered the sworn Heil letter, and that letter would have precluded summary judgment, so denial of reconsideration was erroneous |
| Whether unsworn documents may be cured by continuance to obtain sworn versions | Cullerton: Requested continuance to certify documents under oath | CAC: Materials were inadmissible; no basis for delay | Court: Did not reach merits of denial of continuance on appeal (case reversed on other ground) |
| Whether CR 59/CR 60(b) relief should have been granted | Cullerton: Relief warranted due to irregularity and newly presented sworn evidence | CAC: Trial court discretion to deny; evidence was not newly discovered | Court: Reversed based on CR 59 reconsideration error; did not resolve CR 60(b) claim on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (Washington 2015) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Young Soo Kim v. Choong-Hyun Lee, 174 Wn. App. 319 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (CR 56(e) requires sworn affidavits/declarations in opposition to summary judgment)
- Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658 (Wash. 1998) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings on summary judgment)
- Martini v. Post, 178 Wn. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court has discretion whether to consider additional evidence on reconsideration)
- Christian v. Tohmeh, 191 Wn. App. 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (standards for CR 59 motions)
- Chen v. State, 86 Wn. App. 183 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court not required to consider additional evidence on reconsideration)