Donna Zink, et vir v. Benton County
34150-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 16, 2017Background
- Donna and Jeff Zink sued Benton County and several county officials after the county notified sex offenders that Donna Zink had requested level-one sex offender registration records; the notification included Zink’s name and email.
- The Zinks alleged civil-rights violations, Public Records Act violations, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
- County moved to dismiss; hearing originally set for November, continued to December 4 by agreement of counsel after scheduling communications.
- The Zinks filed affidavits of prejudice against two judges (Spanner and VanderSchoor), questioned which judge would be assigned, and ultimately refused to attend the December 4 hearing asserting lack of notice of a special setting.
- County proceeded with the December 4 hearing before Judge Ekstrom, who granted the dismissal on the merits based on the County’s briefing; the Zinks’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The Zinks appealed, arguing procedural irregularities, denial of a fair hearing, appearance of fairness/equal protection violations; the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal and denied attorney fees to the Zinks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was improper because Zinks were absent and lacked notice of a specially set judge | Zinks: dismissal relied on their nonappearance and lack of notice of the specially set judge | County: hearing was properly noticed, local rules governed filing/bench copy and assignment of judge did not change notice requirement; court ruled on merits | Court: Dismissal was on the merits based on briefing; absence did not convert the judgment into a default. |
| Whether procedural irregularities (assignment of judge; special setting notice) denied fair hearing | Zinks: not informed which judge would hear motion; assignment came late so hearing was unfair | County: local rules did not require separate notice of assigned judge; Zinks could file response and deliver bench copy regardless of judge identity | Court: No procedural error—local rules satisfied; Zinks had opportunity to file and appear; their nonattendance was voluntary. |
| Whether motion for reconsideration denial was an abuse of discretion | Zinks: asked reconsideration due to procedural unfairness | County: trial court properly exercised discretion; reconsideration not warranted | Court: No abuse of discretion; reconsideration denial affirmed. |
| Whether appearance of fairness or equal protection claims warrant relief | Zinks: County’s communications with court administration and judge assignment created appearance of partiality and unequal access | County: assignment communications were not improper; claims not timely raised or inadequately briefed | Court: Appearance-of-fairness claim not preserved (not raised promptly); equal protection inadequately argued; appellate review refused. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Cole, 157 Wn. App. 873 (2010) (judgment based on considered evidence is not a default even if a party is absent)
- Kleyer v. Harborview Med. Ctr. of the Univ. of Wash., 76 Wn. App. 542 (1995) (standard of review for denial of reconsideration is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Blizzard, 195 Wn. App. 717 (2016) (appearance-of-fairness recusal claim must be raised promptly)
- Litho Color, Inc. v. Pacific Emp'rs Ins. Co., 98 Wn. App. 286 (1999) (issues inadequately briefed will not be considered)