Terry Lynn Mcdermott v. Scott William Mcdermott, 76049-1

Background

Scott and Terry McDermott divorced in 2010; their settlement required Scott to pay maintenance to Terry through 2025.
Scott suffered a 2013 injury, obtained lower-paying work, fell into arrears, and moved to modify maintenance.
In November 2014 the trial court modified maintenance to 50% of Scott’s income and required annual financial review; it also ordered Scott to pay 50% of his tax refund toward arrears.
After Scott’s mother died and he received an inheritance, Terry petitioned in May 2016 to increase maintenance; a court commissioner granted the petition and increased monthly maintenance.
Scott sought revision of the commissioner’s decision; the revision was assigned to the same judge who had made discretionary rulings in an earlier supplemental proceeding. Scott filed a timely affidavit of prejudice under RCW 4.12.050 seeking the judge’s disqualification.
The judge denied the disqualification because of prior rulings in the case and denied revision; the Court of Appeals reversed, vacating the revision order and remanding for a new judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Terry)	Defendant's Argument (Scott)	Held
Whether the modification proceeding was a "new proceeding" under RCW 4.12.040/4.12.050, triggering a change-of-judge as of right	This was not a new proceeding because the parties anticipated the mother’s death and the earlier supplemental proceeding addressed related financial issues	The modification petition alleged changed circumstances (inheritance) and thus was a new proceeding entitling Scott to a change of judge upon timely affidavit of prejudice	The modification was a new proceeding; Scott was entitled to a change of judge as a matter of right
Whether a timely affidavit of prejudice requires inquiry into the substance of the allegations	Terry argued the facts showed no new circumstances, so recusal was unnecessary	Scott argued that a timely affidavit under RCW 4.12.050 is conclusive and requires disqualification without fact‑finding	The court held the filing is conclusive; no inquiry into merits is permitted once the affidavit is timely filed
Whether prior discretionary rulings by the judge in ancillary proceedings bar recusal in a subsequent modification proceeding	Terry asserted the judge’s prior discretionary ruling in a supplementary enforcement matter justified staying on the case	Scott argued prior discretionary rulings in a different proceeding do not defeat his statutory right to disqualify for the new modification proceeding	The court held prior discretionary rulings in a different proceeding do not defeat the right to recusal for a new proceeding
Whether appellate court should decide remaining merits now or defer to trial court on remand	Terry invited full review of merits	Scott sought reversal on recusal only	The court declined to address discretionary merits and remanded those issues to the new trial judge

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Mauerman v. Superior Court for Thurston County, 44 Wn.2d 828 (Wash. 1954) (modification proceedings that present new facts are "new proceedings" for recusal purposes)
State v. Belgarde, 119 Wn.2d 711 (Wash. 1992) (discussing Mauerman framework for identifying a new proceeding)
State v. Gentry, 183 Wn.2d 749 (Wash. 2015) (party may disqualify a judge for prejudice without substantiating the claim)
In re Parenting Plan of Hall, 184 Wn. App. 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (timely affidavit of prejudice conclusively establishes prejudice; merits of changed circumstances are for the next judge)
State v. Clemons, 56 Wn. App. 57 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989) (uses phrase "a new proceeding" to indicate matter is not "in the case")
Marine Power & Equip. Co., Inc. v. Indus. Indem. Co., 102 Wn.2d 457 (Wash. 1984) (timely filing of affidavit of prejudice establishes prejudice)