WSU And Washington State v. Sandra Bernklow
31910-5
Wash. Ct. App.Jan 17, 2017Background
- In 2008 Bernklow's dogs received veterinary care at Washington State University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital; she paid about $2,000 and owed $3,030.94 remaining.
- The university sent collection demands in May–August 2008 and ultimately referred the account for collection in 2012.
- The university sued Bernklow on November 15, 2012 to recover the balance plus collection costs; the action was within the six-year statute of limitations for account claims.
- Bernklow moved pretrial to dismiss or for summary judgment alleging laches, pleading and service defects, and asked alternatively for transfer to small claims; she also later moved for the judge’s recusal.
- The trial court denied her pretrial motions and recusal request; after a bench trial the court entered judgment for the university for $6,970.31.
- On appeal Bernklow challenged only the denials of the pretrial motions and the denial of recusal; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bernklow) | Defendant's Argument (WSU) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars the suit | Delay of ~4 years was unreasonable and prejudiced her (lost records, faded memory, emotional harm) | Action was within six-year statute; Bernklow failed to show prejudice or changed circumstances | Laches not established; summary judgment burden unmet and denial proper |
| Who bears burden on laches at summary judgment | Court should require university to explain its delay; Bernklow as movant should not bear the burden | Movant asserting laches (Bernklow) bore the summary judgment burden to show no genuine issue | Bernklow, as moving party on laches, bore the burden and did not meet it |
| Pleading/service defects and failure to attach exhibits | Complaint defective for (a) not attaching instruments to served copy, (b) served before filing, and (c) mislabeling account as "educational" | Service-before-filing is permitted by CR 3(a); no required attachments where none referenced; drafting error not fatal; supporting materials were later provided | No procedural defect requiring dismissal; denial proper |
| Whether case should have been transferred to small claims/district court | Case should have been transferred | No timely motion was made; argument waived on appeal | Transfer argument not preserved; court did not err |
| Judicial recusal | Judge Acey showed bias (decided without reading, demeaned her, hearing procedures) | No objective evidence of bias; judge’s conduct reasonable and adjudicative acts alone insufficient | No abuse of discretion in denying recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopp v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 90 Wn.2d 754 (equitable laches elements and doctrine overview)
- Crodle v. Dodge, 99 Wash. 121 (laches as implied waiver; prejudice requirement)
- Clark County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Wilkinson, 139 Wn.2d 840 (focus on prejudice rather than mere delay for laches)
- State ex rel. Bond v. State, 62 Wn.2d 487 (summary judgment burden discussion where laches was raised on motion)