Better Foods Land v. Rick Bower and Marilee Thomapson

8/9/2019 Better Foods Land v. Rick Bower and Marilee Thomapson

1/32

NO. 38957-6-II

BETTER. FOODS LAND INVESTMENT CO.,a Cali fornia Limited Partnership,

v.RICK BOWLER and MJUULBB THOMPSON,

Respondents,

Appellants.

APPEAL !'RON THE StJPBRIOR COURT

THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. BARRIS

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

Robert E.L . BennettAttorney fo r Appellants1614 WashingtonVancouver, WA 98660(360)695-0770


2/32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................ 1ISSUES PRESENTED ............................ 3STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................... 3

1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Facts Concerning Arbitrat ion ........ 53. Facts Concerning the Instant Lawsuit . 54. Defaul Judgment ..................... 6

ARGUMENT .................................... 31. Standard of Review .................. 72. The Four Factors To Be Shown By theMoving Party ........................ 113. The Tria l Court Erred In Assessing

Due Diligence With Reference to Passageof Time From Filing of theComplaint, Rather Than Discovery ofEntry of Default Judgment ........... 124. Appellants Submitted SufficientEvidence Supporting a Prima Facie

Case ................................ 185. Appellants Adequately DemonstratedThat Their Failure to Answer WasDue to Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise,Or Excusable Neglect ............... 226. Better Foods Will Not Suffer aSubstantial Hardship I f the Default

i


3/32


4/32


5/32

State v. Ward, 125 Wash.App. 374,104 P.3d 751 review denied, 155 Wash.2d 1025 (2005) ............................. 15Suburban Janitorial Services v.Clarke American, 72 Wash. App. 302,863 P.2d 1377 (1993) ....................... 16In re Marriage o f Tang, 57 Wn.App.648, 653, 789 P.2d 118 (1990 ................ 21Griggs v. Averbeck Realty , Inc. , 92Wash. 2d 576, 599 P.2d 1289 (1979) ......... 21Gutz v. Johnson, 128 Wash. App. a t 901,920, 117 P.3d 390 (2005 ..................... 24Housing Authority o f Grant County v.Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178, 19P.3d 1081 (2001) ......................... 24

RULES:

CR 6 (b) 13,CR55 (c ) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8CR 60....................................... 8, 12CR 60 (b) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 14 ,

iv


6/32

INTRODUCTION

The par t i e s to the l awsui t underlying th i sappeal are commercial proper ty developers . OnJune 14, 2005 Pla in t i f f , Bet t e r Foods LandInvestment, entered in to a Purchase and SaleAgreement to develop Centerpointe Reta i l Center .The Se l le r was defendant , Centerpointe , LLC akaOriginal Centerpointe , LLC. The LLC cons is ted oftwo members, defendants Rick Bowler and MarileeThompson.

A dispute arose under the Purchase and SaleAgreement, which mandated a rb i t r a t i on . Bet terFoods commenced a rb i t r a t i on in Multnomah County,Oregon and f i l ed the i n s t a n t l awsui t aga ins tCenterpo in t , LLC and it's members in Clark CountySuperior Court. Bowler and Thompson were notpa r t i e s to the Sale Agreement as ind iv idua l s o rmari t a l community, nor did they s ign a persona lguarantee fo r any ob l iga t ion or l i ab i l i t y .Nevertheless , Bet ter Foods sued the LLC membersfor the f u l l measure of damages cla imed and moved

1


7/32

to compel Bowler and Thompson to join in thearb i t ra t ion . The t r i a l court ruled t ha t therewas no bas is shown to ~ p i e r c e the vei l " .

The arb i t ra t ion went forward without Bowlerand Thompson, culminating in a monetary awardagainst Centerpointe, LLC only. Said award wasentered as a Clark County Superior Court judgment(pr inciple amount:2008.

$736,749.55) on September 26,

Bowler and Thompson's at torney withdrew onSeptember 18, 2008. On October 3, 2008, Bet terFoods moved to obtain defaul t judgment againstBowler and Thompson. Unfortunately, Bowler andThompson d idn ' t receive not ice of the defaul tmotion un t i l a f t e r the scheduled October 10hearing. Defaul t judgment was entered in the sumor $736,749.55 on October 19, 2008.

After l earning of the defaul t judgment,Bowler and Thompson sought to vacate the defaul tjudgment on November 18, 2008. The t r i a l judgedenied the motion as untimely, saying t ha t , since

2


8/32

the complaint was f i l ed in March, 2008,defendants squandered the e igh t or nine monthsthey had to f i l e the i r answer; t ha t they onlyreacted a f te r a garnishment i ssued .

As the t r i a l cour t abused i t s disc re t ion indenying the motion. Judgment should be se t as ideand the case remanded for fur ther proceedings.

ISSUE PRESENTED1. Did the t r i a l cour t abuse i t s

disc re t ion in denying the motion to vacate thedefau l t judgment as untimely?

Answer: Yes.

STA'l'BMENT OF FACTS

1 . BackgroundBet ter Foods

(here inaf ter Bet terLand

Foods)Investmententered in to

Co.a

Purchase and Sale Agreement to purchase a s i t e todevelop Centerpointe Reta i l Center in Vancouver,Washington. Sel le r was Centerpointe LLC, al imi ted l i a b i l i t y corpora t ion consis t ing of two

3


9/32

members: Rick Bowler and Marilee Thompson, whoare husband and wife. Bowler and Thompson didnot agree to any term of the purchase and sale

in t he i r individual or mari ta lgreementcapaci ty. Better Foods did not requi re them tosign a personal guarantee for any personalobl igat ion of l i ab i l i t y . CP a t 234.

Bet ter Foods closed the t ransac t ion re ly ingupon purchase agreement terms by requi r ingCenterpointe to const ruct a r ight-of-way fo rvehicle access to the property. This accesspoint had been opposed by the County and wasnever approved. Centerpointe posted in escrow$40,000, which was the agreed amount needed forthe construct ion of the right-of-way, i fapproved. Short ly a f te r the sale was f inal ized,Centerpointe t ransfer red proceeds from the saleminus the escrow amount to i t s two principalsBowler and Thompson. Centerpointe fa i led tomaintain the LLC in an act ive bas is and wasdissolved by the Secretary of Sta te , although

4


10/32

subsequently react ivated and re ins ta ted under adi f fe ren t name since someone e l se claimedCenterpointe. The new ent i ty was cal led theOriginal Centerpointe, LLC, aka Centerpointe,LLC. CP a t 235.

2. Facts Concerning the ArbitrationArbi t ra t ion was f i led in Multnomah County.

Bowler and Thompson maintained t he i r posi t ion inthe arb i t ra t ion tha t they are not subject to theterms of the purchase and sale agreement, butthey were required by the arb i t ra to rs topar t ic ipa te in discovery subj ec t to an ult imatedetermination of whether they ' re subj ec t to theterms and condit ions of the agreement. The t r i a lcourt was advised tha t the arb i t ra t ion panel wasprepared to determine whether any individuall i ab i l i ty exis t s . CP a t 235.

3. Facts Concerning the Instant LawsuitOn March 5, 2008, Better Foods commenced

th i s act ion, in Clark County Super ior Court ,seeking judgment in fu l l measure jo in t ly and

5


11/32

severa l ly against Centerpointe LLC, and i t smembers, Bowler and Thompson. Complaint CP 1-37.Better Foods sought to pierce the ve i l , i . e . ,a l te r ego as to Bowler and Thompson. By motiondated March 5, 2008, Better Foods moved to compelBowler and Thompson to abide by the arb i t ra t ionclause of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. CP a t38. The t r i a l cour t ruled tha t "Bowler andThompson are not subject to the arb i t ra t ionagreement as there i s no showing of fraud,incorporat ion by re fe rence , assumption or agencywhich would lead to an opportunity to pierce theve i l . " Memorandum of Decision, Page 2 of 3. CPa t 235.

4. Default JudgmentBowler and Thompson's at torney withdrew from

the Superior Court case on September 18, 2008.CP 246. Bet ter Foods obtained a $736,749.55judgment against Centerpointe LLC, but not Bowlerand Thompson, on September 26, 2008, CP 262.Better Foods noted a motion fo r defaul t October

6


12/32

10, 2008, and was successful in having defau l tjudgment ente red aga ins t Bowler and Thompson onOctober 19, 2008. CP 292 and a t 309.

Due to t h e i r e igh t day absence and a mail ingaddress mix-up, Bowler and Thompson d i d n ' trece ive not ice of Be t te r Food's defau l t motion int ime. Bowler and Thompson learned t h a t a defau l tjudgment had been awarded aga ins t them a f t e r thefac t , and f i l ed t h e i r motion to se t as ide thedefau l t judgment on November 18, 2008. CP 296.

ARGtJMENT

1. Standard o f Review

"Any discuss ion of defau l t judgments beginswith th e propos i t ion t ha t they are not favored inthe law" Johnson v . Cash Store , 116 Wn.App. 833,840, 68 P. 3d 1099 (2003) . "Defaul t judgments aregenera l ly dis favored in Washington based on anoverr id ing po l icy wi th pre fe rs t ha t pa r t i e sreso lve disputes on th e meri t s . " Showal t e r v.Wild Oats, 124 Wn.App. 506, 510, 101 P.3d 867(2004) . "This cour t has long favored reso lu t ion

7


13/32


14/32

aside a defaul t judgment. rd . ; see also White v .Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 438 P.2d 581 (1968) (Wherethe determination of the t r i a l cour t resu l t s inthe denial of a t r i a l on the meri ts , an abuse ofdiscre t ion may be more readi ly found than inthose instances where the defaul t judgment i s se taside and a t r i a l on the meri ts ensues) .

The t r i a l cour t entered defaul t judgmentagainst Bowler and Thompson in the pr inc ipa l sumof $736,749.55. CP 292.

This cour t has acknowledged tha tthe amount of damages awarded i s arelevant fac tor tha t may beconsidered by a t r i a l cour t indeciding whether to se t aside adefaul t judgment. See White, 73Wash.2d a t 353, 438 P.2d 581("where, as here the damagessought are subs tan t i a l andunl iquidated H even a "tenuous Hdefense may support vacation ofthe defaul t judgment when otherfac tors are met) ; Graham, 192Wash. a t 126-27, 72 P.2d 1041 ( " i ti s to be borne in mind tha t , bythe ' ent ry of de fau l t , ' [thedefaul t ing part ies] were not onlydenied a t r i a l on the al legat ionsof the [ ] complaint , but werealso subjected to an af f i rmat ivejudgment in a large sum

9


15/32

without an opportunity to contes tthe cla im.") .I t i s well es tabl ished infederal courts tha t defaul tjudgments are especia l ly disfavoredwhen subs tan t i a l amounts of moneyare involved. See lOA Wright,Mil ler & Kane, supra, 2681, a t10-11; 10 Moore, supra, 55.20[2][b] , a t 55-28 to -29; 47Arn.Jur.2d Judgments 663 (2006)(noting tha t amount of moneyinvolved i s a relevant factor in

determining whether to se t aside adefaul t judgment); Hutton v.Fisher , 359 F.2d 913, 916 (3dCir.1966) 'Matters involvinglarge sums should not be determinedby defaul t judgments i f it canreasonably be avoided. Any doubtshould be resolved in favor of thepe t i io n to se t aside the judgmentso tha t cases may be decided onthe i r meri t s . ' ") (quoting Tozer v.Char les A. Krause M i ll in g Co. 189F.2d 242 (3d Cir.1951)); Hertz v.Berzanske, 704 P.2d 767, 773(Alaska 1985) (set t ing asidedefaul t judgment of approximately$436,000, noting controversyconcerning damages of th i smagnitude should be resolved on i t smerits whenever possible") .

Little v. King, 160 Wash.2d 696, 715-6, 161P.3d 345 (2007).

10


16/32

2 . The Four Factors To Be Shown By theMovinq Party

A defendant moving to vacate the defau l tjudgment must show:

Thesecond

1. That the re i s subs tan t ia levidence support ing a primafac ie defense;

2. That theappear andmistake ,su rp r i se ,neglect ;

fa i lu re to t imelyanswer was due toinadver tence,

or excusable3. That the defendant ac ted with

due di l igence a f t e r the not iceof the defau l t judgment; and

4. That thesuf fe r aif thevacated.

p l a i n t i f f w i l l notsubs tan t ia l hardship

defau l t judgment i s

f i r s t tw o fac tors are pr imary whiletwo are secondary. This i s not

thea

mechanical t e s t ; whether or not a defau l tjudgment should be se t as ide i s a mat te r ofequi ty . Li t t l e v. King, 160 Wash.2d 696, 161P.3d 345 (2007) .

In the i n s t a n t case, the t r i a l cour t ' sden ia l of Bowler and Thompson's motion to vacate

11


17/32

defaul t judgment focused on the th i rd fac tor ,i. e . , whether defendants acted with duedi l igence . The cour t found tha t Bowler andThompson fa i led to move with due dil igence, i . e . ,defendants squandered t h e i r opportunity to f i l ean answer while eight or nine months passed fromthe t ime the complaint was f i l ed . 1

3 . The Tria l Court Erred In Assessing DueDil igence With Reference to Passage o fTime Fram Fi l ing o f the Complaint,Rather Than Discovery o f Entry ofDefault Judgment

The port ions of CR 60 mater ia l to th i sappeal are as follows:1 THE COURT: Okay. The complaint was

f i led in March an d no answer was everf i led on behalf of Thompson and Bowler,an d they had a f u l l opportunity to f i l ethe i r answer eight , nine months. And theto ta l dealings t ha t they had f i led tha tit was s t r i c t ly center point and theargument whether they were subject to thearb i t ra t ion agreement, but they neverf i led an answer and but they hadappeared in the sense tha t they werearguing the issues as to the arb i t ra t ion .They did receive notice . They did notrespond to the not ice . They onlyresponded af t e r the garnishment hadoccurred and the check had been disbursedfrom the Court . Not t imely. So I 'mgoing to deny the motion.

RP Page 7, Line 21 to end.

12


18/32

(b) M1stakes; Inadvertence;Bxcusable Neglect; NewlyDiscovered Bvidence; Fraud; etc .On motion and upon such terms asare j u s t , the cour t may re l ieve apar ty or his legal representa t ivefrom a f i na l judgment, order , orproceeding fo r the fol lowingreasons:

(1) Mistakes , inadvertence ,su rp r i se , excusable neglect ori r r egu l a r i t y in obta in ing ajudgment or order ;

(11) Any other reason j u s t i f y ingr e l i e f from the opera t ion of thejudgment.

The motion s ha l l be madewi th in a reasonable t ime and fo rreasons (1) , (2) or (3) not morethan 1 year a f t e r the judgment,order , or proceeding was enteredor taken.

Also mater ia l i s CR 6 (b) ,which in r e levan t pa r t s t a t e s :

[T]he cour t fo r cause shownmay a t any t ime in i t s disc re t ion ,(1) with or without motion ornot ice , order the per iod enla rgedif reques t the re fo re i s madebefore the exp i ra t ion of theper iod or ig ina l ly prescr ibed or asextended by a previous order or,(2) upon motion made a f t e r theexpi ra t ion of the spec i f i edper iod , permi t the a c t to be done

13


19/32

where the fa i lure to ac t was ther e su l t of excusable neglec t ; butit may not extend the time fortaking any act ion under rules50(b), 52(b), 59(b), 59(d), and60 (b) .

A motion to vacate under CR 60 (b) must bef i led wi th in a "reasonable t ime." The c r i t i c a lperiod i s the period between the par ty ' sdiscovery of the judgment or order and the f i l ingof the motion to vacate . Lucket t v . Boeing Co.,98 Wash.App. 307, 312, 989 P.2d 1144 (1999),review denied, 140 Wn.App. 1026 (2000). (held:four months delay wi thout good reason wasunreasonable) . What const i tutes a "reasonabletime" depends on the fac ts and circumstances ofeach case. Id. "Maj or considerat ions" includeprejudice to the nonmoving par ty and "whether themoving par ty has good reasons fo r fa i l ing to takeappropriate action sooner. Id. (c i t ing In reMarriage o f Thurston, 92 Wash.App. 494, 500, 963P.2d 947 (1998), review denied, 137 Wash.2d 1023,980 P.2d 1282 (1999)).

14


20/32

Under Rule 60 (b) tha t which has been deemedto cons t i tu te a "reasonable" t ime var iess ign i f i can t ly . See, e .g . , In re Estate o fStevens, 94 Wash. App. 20, 971 P.2d 58, asamended, (1999) (court properly refused to vacateorder of defaul t , where par ty "chose to donothing" for three months a f te r order wasentered) ; Peoples State Bank v. Hickey, 55Wash.App. 367, 777 P.2d 1056 (Div. 1 1989) (courtrefused to vacate defaul t judgment a f t e r thedefendant "s lep t on her r igh t s for 2 years"before moving to vacate) ; State v. Ward, 125Wash.App. 374, 104 P.3d 751 review denied, 155Wash. 2d 1025 (2005) (holding t ha t delay of 10years from the t ime the grounds could have beenasser ted was an unreasonable amount of time towait to br ing motion under Rule 60(b) (11) when nogood reason fo r the delay was s ta ted} .

Clarke argues t ha t , even i f r e l i e fi s barred under CR 6 and CR60(b} (1), the court was authorizedto grant r e l i e f under CR 60 (b) (4)and (b) (11) . Neither sect ioncontains any expl ic i t time

15


21/32


22/32

d e f au l t judgment where, "Cash Store f i l e d amotion to vaca te th e defau l t judgment l e s s than amonth a f t e r it received not i ce o f t he w r i t ofgarn ishment ." Johnson v. Cash St o re , a t 842.

Bowler and Thompson's a t to rney , JosephVance, withdrew on September 18, 2008. OnOctober 3 , 2008, Bet t e r Foods mailed Notice o fMotion fo r Order o f Defau l t , s e t fo r October 10,2008, to defendants . CP 264. 2 3 Defau l t judgment

2 was sent to the address provided inVance's Notice of In tent to Withdraw. Unfortunately, th i swas not Bowler an d Thompson's mail ing address . CP a t 299.

The Notice

3 Notice of the hearing was insuf f ic ien t underCR5 (b) (2) (A) .Any par ty who has appeared in the act ion fo r an ypurpose sha l l be served with a writ ten not ice of motion fo rdefau l t and the supporting af f idavi t a t l e a s t 5 days beforethe hear ing on the motion. (CR 55(a) (3). I t i s undisputedt ha t Better Foods mailed a not ice of hear ing t ha t s t a t e s ,"Please take not ice t ha t p la in t i f f Better Foods LandInvestment Co. ' s Motion fo r Order of Default AgainstDefendants Rick Bowler, Merilee Thompson, and OriginalCenterpointe , LLC aka Centerpointe, LLC i s se t fo r hear ingbefore Judge Harr is on Friday, October 10, 2008 a t 9: 00a.m." CP 287. The ce r t i f i c a te of serv ice s t a t e s t ha t itwas mailed to Bowler and Thompson on October 3, 2008.12CR 5(b) (2) (A) explains t ha t serv ices by mail

sha l l be deemed complete upon the t h i rdday following the day upon which they areplaced in the mail, unless the t h i rd dayf a l l s on a Saturday, Sunday or l ega lholiday, in which event serv ice sha l l bedeemed complete on the f i r s t day otherthan a Saturday, Sunday or l ega l hol iday,following the th i rd day.October 3, 2008, the date the not ice was mailed, was aFriday and there were no l ega l hol idays tha t week. Thus

17


23/32


24/32

CP 38 and 307. The cour t ente red a three-pageMemorandum o f Decis ion (CP 234) cover ing th ep ivo ta l is sue in th e case agains t Bowler andThompson, i. e., whether grounds e x i s t to p ie rceth e ve i l t ha t pro tec t s LLC members Bowler andThompson from l i a b i l i t y incurred in th e name o fCenterpointe , LLC. 4 "This i s an act ion to p ie rcethe corpora te v e i l . " P la in t i f f ' s Response Inoppos i t ion To Defendants ' Motion To Set AsideDefau l t Judgment, Page 2, Line 2. CP a t 308.

The disputed Purchase and Sale Agreement(Exhibi t 1 to P la in t i f f ' s Complaint) and EscrowClosing Agreement (Exhibi t 3 to P l a i n t i f f ' s4 ROW 25.15.125 - - Liabi l i ty o f members and

managers to third part i e s .

(1) Except as otherwise provided by th i schapter, the debts, obligations, an dl i ab i l i t i e s of a l imited l i ab i l i tycompany, whether aris ing in contract ,to r t or otherwise, sha l l be solely thedebts, obl igat ions, and l i ab i l i t i e s ofthe l imi ted l i ab i l i ty company; an d nomember or manager of a l imited l i ab i l i tycompany sha l l be obligated personally forany such debt, obligation, or l i ab i l i tyof the l imi ted l i ab i l i ty company solelyby reason of being a member or act ing asa manager of the l imited l i ab i l i tycompany.

19


25/32

Complaint) were executed by Bowler and/orThompson in the i r representa t ive capaci ty. CP a t10-37. The deta i l s of Bowler and Thompson'sinvolvement and the i r l ega l defense againstpersonal l i ab i l i ty i s se t for th in grea t de ta i lin Defendants, Rick Bowler 's and MarileeThompson's twelve-page Response to Motion toCompel Arbi t ra t ion. The arb i t ra t ion agreement i sSection 10.14 of the pa r t i e s ' Purchase and SaleAgreement.

The t r i a l cour t found tha t Bowler andThompson were not bound by the LLC's contrac t :

Bet ter Foods wishes to piercethe vei l , i . e . , a l t e r ego as toBowler and Thompson. In reviewingthe case author i ty and thepleadings, I must conclude tha tthe Bowler and Thompson are notsubject to the arb i t ra t ionagreement as there i s no showingof fraud, incorporat ion byreference, assumption or agencywhich would lead to an opportuni tyto pierce the ve i l .

Memorandum of Decision, Page 2, Line 20-24 (CP234). The vei l tha t shielded Bowler and Thompsonfrom l i ab i l i ty under the arb i t ra t ion clause

20


26/32

pro tec t s them with equal force from l i a b i l i t yunder other sec t ions of LLC's con t rac t withBet ter Foods.

Insofar as Bowler and Thompson's motion tovacate defau l t judgment may have unders ta ted theaforementioned defense, the t r i a l cour t recordcontained abundant evidence suppor t the primafac ie defense, " I f the moving par ty i s adefendant , the a f f i dav i t must se t for th fac t ses t ab l i sh ing a va l id defense to the cla im,al though t h i s requirement may be waived whenexis tence of such a defense i s read i ly evidentfrom cour t records ." In re Marr iage o f Tang, 57Wn.App. 648, 653, 789 P.2d 11 8 (1990). Indetermining whether th e defendant has a t l ea s t aprima fac ie defense, the cour t may look beyondthe af f idavi t s and declara t ions submit ted inconnect ion with th e motion, and may cons idero ther mate r ia l s in th e cour t f i l e . Griggs v.Averbeck Real ty , I nc . , 92 Wash. 2d 576, 599 P.2d1289 (1979).

21


27/32

5. Appellants Adequately Demonstrated ThatTheir Failure to Answer Was Due To~ s t a k e , Inadvertence, Surprise, orBxcusable Neglect

Bowler and Thompson possess a strongs ta tutory defense agains t individual l i ab i l i ty .See, RCW 25.15.125. Better Foods t r i ed , andfa i led, to pierce the s ta tutory ve i l . SeeMemorandum of Decision. CP 234. " I f a strong orvi r tua l ly conclusive defense i s demonstrated, thecourt wil l spend l i t t l e time inquiring in to thereasons for the fa i lu re to appear and answer,provided the moving par ty t imely moved to vacateand the fa i lu re to appear was not wil l fu l . "Showalter v. Wi ld Oats, 124 Wash.App. 506, 101P.3d 867 (2004).

The aforementioned decision of the t r i a lcourt seemingly s ide l ined Bowler and Thompsonfrom the dispute between Better Foods andCenterpointe LLC. The arb i t ra t ion between thebusiness en t i t i e s went forward without Bowler andThompson and culminated in a f ina l judgmentagainst Original Centerpointe LLC and

22


28/32

Centerpointe LLC on September 26, 2008. CP 262.Bowler 's and Thompson's at torney withdrew onSeptember 18, 2008. With the case seeminglyconcluded, one might apprecia te how Bowler andThompson, by October, 2008, may have been lu l l edin to a sense t ha t they no longer needed to remainv i g i l an t in the I i iga t ion . Unfortunately,Bowler and Thompson came across Bet ter Foods'no t ice o f motion fo r defau l t judgment a f t e r ithad a l ready taken place . The not ice had beenmailed to one of defendants ' secondary addresses. 5Bowler and Thompson found the l e t t e r among abacklog of mail a f t e r an eight-day absence fromtown. See, Motion and Declarat ion For OrderSet t ing Aside Judgment As to Rick Bowler andMari lee Thompson. CP 296.

5 The property address, not Bowler and Thompson'smailing address, was supplied on t h e i r at torney ' s Notice ofIn tent to Withdraw. CP 246.

23


29/32

6. Better Foods Will Not suffer aSubstant ial Bardship IF the DefaultJudgment i s Vacated

According to Better Foods: "P la in t i f f hasand wil l continue to suf fer subs tan t i a l hardshipi f the cour t ' s defaul t judgment i s vacated. Foralmost two years , pla in t i f f has pursueddefendants through the l ega l system, incurr ingsubstant ia l loss of time and expense, includingattorney fees ." Response In Opposition toDefendant 's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.CP 307.

The poss ib i l i ty of a t r i a l i s aninsuf f ic ien t basis for the courtto find subs tan t i a l hardship onthe non-moving party . Pfa f f , 103Wash. App. a t 836, 14 P.3d 837:see also Cash Store, 116 Wash.App. a t 842, 60 P.3d 1099("vacation of a defaul tinequitably obtained cannot besaid to subs tan t ia l ly prejudicethe nonmoving party merely becausethe resul t ing t r i a l delaysresolut ion on the meri t s . " ) . Thisreasoning i s consis tent withWashington's pol icy tha t preferspar t ies resolve disputes on themeri ts , as opposed to defaul tproceedings. Wild Oats, 124 Wash.App. a t 511, 101 P.3d 867.

24


30/32

Gutz v. Johnson, 128 Wash. App. a t 901, 920, 117P.3d 390 (2005).

7 . Costs and Te%DlsUpon rul ing on motion to vacate a defaul t

judgment, the court may, in i t s disc re t ion , awardcosts and terms to e i ther par ty . I f thedefendant ' s motion i s denied, the court may awardcosts and terms to the pla in t i f f . I f thedefendant ' s motion i s granted, the court mayaward cots and terms to the defendant. HousingAuthori ty o f Grant County v. Newbigging, 105Wash. App. 178, 19 P.3d 1081 (2001) (at torneyfees awarded to defendant a f te r successful lymoving to have defaul t judgment vacated) .

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appel lantrequests tha t the Court overturn the t r i a lcour t ' s denial of Appel lan t ' s Motion to Set Asidethe Order of Defaul t and Default Judgment, and

25


31/32

al low the par t i e s to resolve t h i s matter on themeri t s .

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED t h i s day ofJuly , 2009.

-----SBA #10827AttorneyBowler and Thompson

26


32/32

CERTIFICATE OF ~ L I N G I hereby ce r t i fy t ha t I served th e forgoing

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS on the fol lowing ind iv idua l son July 1, 2009, by mail ing to sa id indiv idual(s )a t rue copy conta ined in a sealed envelope, withpos tage prepa id , addressed t o sa id ind iv idua l a th i s /he r l a s t known address , to wit :

J u l i e R. VacuraAttorney a t Law621 SW Morrison Stree t , Sui te 1450Por t land , OR 97205-3817

DATED t h i s -+-- day of Ju ly , 2009

CERTIFICATE OF ~ L I N G

Better Foods Land v. Rick Bower and Marilee Thomapson

Documents

Transcript of Better Foods Land v. Rick Bower and Marilee Thomapson