Meade v. Nelson
300 P.3d 828
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Meade was injured on Aug 4, 2004 and later sued by Nelson for the personal injury suit (dismissed for Nelson’s late service).
- Meade pursued a potential legal malpractice claim against Nelson; Nelson’s firm retained Tompkins to settle/defend the claim.
- KLF and Tompkins discussed settlement in July–Sept 2010; Tompkins did not file a notice of appearance or respond as to service at that time.
- On Aug 23, 2010, KLF sent an ER 408 settlement demand offering $250,000; Tompkins responded Oct 28 offering $40,000; no response from KLF.
- Nov 23, 2010, KLF sought a default under CR 55(a); the court granted default without notice to Tompkins due to lack of appearance.
- Aug 3, 2011, KLF moved for default judgment; Tompkins learned and moved to set aside; trial court vacated the default; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tompkins substantially complied with CR 4(a)(3). | Meade argues Tompkins did not file a notice of appearance. | Nelson/Nelson Law Firm contend no appearance or notice. | Tompkins substantially complied; entitled to notice and default vacated. |
| Whether the default should be set aside for good cause under CR 55(c). | Meade asserts no good cause due to negligence. | Tompkins asserts there was good cause given conduct and intent to defend. | Trial court’s decision to set aside the default affirmed, based on substantial compliance and good cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745 (2007) (substantial compliance required, appearance after suit begins is key)
- Smith v. Arnold, 127 Wn. App. 98 (2005) (earlier manifestation of intent to defend discussed but limited by Morin)
- Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300 (1986) (two-prong test for setting aside defaults; excusable neglect and due diligence)
- Rosander v. Nightrunners Transp., Ltd., 147 Wn. App. 392 (2008) (appearance and notice principles; substantial compliance doctrine)