272 P.3d 235
Wash.2012Background
- Pls sought damages in a cab collision case involving Harris and Williams and defendants Tilaye and Ayelaka.
- Case proceeded to mandatory arbitration under RCW 7.06.020 with no arbitration award given to plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs requested a trial de novo; before it, they offered settlements under $10,000 each, which were rejected.
- Trial de novo awarded plaintiffs $20,512 (Harris) and $7,482 (Williams).
- Plaintiffs then sought attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250, which the trial court granted; CA reversed, and WA Supreme Court granted review.
- Issue is whether RCW 4.84.250-.300 may be invoked for the first time 10 days before a trial de novo after arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 4.84.250-.300 applies to a trial de novo after arbitration. | Williams argues fees may be awarded if offers were made 10 days before trial de novo. | Tilaye argues the small-claims fee scheme applies only before initial trial/arbitration, not before trial de novo. | RCW 4.84.250-.300 applies only if an offer is made 10 days before the initial hearing, trial or arbitration. |
| Is a trial de novo an appeal for RCW 4.84.250-.300 purposes when arbitration occurred first? | Treat trial de novo as an appeal enabling fees. | Treating de novo as an appeal would undermine deterrence against meritless arbitration appeals. | A trial de novo is treated as the appeal for purposes of RCW 4.84.250-.300. |
| Does Malted Mousse limit application of RCW 4.84.250-.300 to pre-arbitration proceedings only? | Argues Malted Mousse does not preclude applying RCW 4.84.250-.300 to arbitration contexts. | Malted Mousse requires the trial de novo be treated as an appeal consistent with 4.84.250-.300. | Malted Mousse does not foreclose applying 4.84.250-.300 to arbitration contexts when treated as an appeal. |
| Does offering settlements within 10 days before arbitration satisfy RCW 4.84.280 for fees on appeal from arbitration? | Offers under $10,000 before arbitration should trigger fees on appeal. | Arbitration is the original trial; offers before arbitration do not trigger 4.84.250-.300 at trial de novo. | To recover fees, an offer must be 10 days before the initial hearing, whether trial or arbitration. |
| What is the proper incentive structure for two fee schemes when arbitration is involved? | Applying 4.84.250-.300 after arbitration would discourage merits of appeal. | Applying it would unduly penalize nonappealing defendants and deter settlements. | Both schemes harmonize by treating the trial de novo as an appeal and requiring a pre-hearing offer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash.2d 518 (2003) (treats trial de novo as an appeal context for fee rules)
- Singer v. Etherington, 57 Wash. App. 542 (1990) (trial de novo treated as appeal for 4.84.290)
- Valley v. Hand, 38 Wash.App. 170 (1984) (district court proceedings treated as appeal for fees)
- Hertz v. Riebe, 86 Wash.App. 102 (1997) (offers 10 days before district court trial required for fees)
- Thomas-Kerr v. Brown, 114 Wash.App. 554 (2002) (trial de novo following arbitration treated as appeal)