Elliott Bay Adjustment Co., Inc., Res. v. Caren Dacumos
75215-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Elliott Bay Adjustment Co. sued Dacumos in district court for $482.84 in October 2014; Dacumos disputed the debt and later retained counsel.
- Dacumos produced a bank statement showing a $541.10 payment that Elliott Bay had not credited; Elliott Bay discovered the payment was misapplied to a different patient.
- Elliott Bay moved for voluntary dismissal and proposed an order dismissing without prejudice; the district court struck "without prejudice" and dismissed the case with prejudice, but denied Dacumos' request for attorney fees.
- Dacumos sought fees under RCW 4.84.250 after the dismissal with prejudice; the district court and the superior court denied fees for various reasons and the superior court affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed legal issues de novo and reversed, holding a dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment that made Dacumos the prevailing party entitled to statutory fees; the case was remanded to determine a reasonable fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a voluntary dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment for purposes of RCW 4.84.250 (small-claims fee statute). | AllianceOne held voluntary nonsuit does not create judgment; thus no fee entitlement. | A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits, so defendant is the prevailing party entitled to mandatory fees under RCW 4.84.250. | Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment; defendant entitled to fees. |
| Whether defendant forfeited fee entitlement by not raising RCW 4.84.250 earlier or by procedural missteps. | Plaintiff argued defendant failed to preserve issues/assign error and relied on prior motions for different relief. | Entitlement to fees is a legal question on appeal; superior court gave legal reasoning; no forfeiture. | No forfeiture; legal issue preserved and reviewable de novo. |
| Whether court could deny fees because defendant did not submit a fee declaration/time records before entitlement was decided. | Plaintiff argued lack of supporting fee declaration justified denial. | No authority requires a fee declaration before entitlement is determined; entitlement is threshold legal issue. | Court erred to require pre-entitlement fee declaration; remand to calculate fees. |
| Whether claim preclusion or the timing of motions barred awarding fees after the dismissal. | Plaintiff argued final judgment precluded post-judgment fee motion (collateral estoppel). | The fee claim under RCW 4.84.250 was not previously ripe; fees are collateral to merits and may be awarded after judgment. | No collateral estoppel; court may award fees after dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v. Lewis, 180 Wn.2d 389 (2014) (discusses effect of voluntary nonsuit without prejudice on entry of judgment)
- Maib v. Maryland Cas. Co., 17 Wn.2d 47 (1943) (dismissal with prejudice operates as judgment on the merits)
- Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853 (2004) (final-judgment principles)
- Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 165 Wn.2d 481 (2009) (voluntary dismissal not final when it leaves parties as if suit never brought)
- Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581 (1983) (lodestar method for calculating reasonable attorney fees)
- Target Nat'l Bank v. Higgins, 180 Wn. App. 165 (2014) (small-claims context: fee awards necessary to compensate defense work despite low amount in controversy)