Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington held that a party seeking a trial de novo after mandatory arbitration must strictly comply with the requirement to timely file a notice naming the aggrieved party. Because Kevin Prueitt was omitted from the timely notice and attempted to amend it after the 20-day period, the amendment could not relate back, and attorney fees were properly assessed against him.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an aggrieved party omitted from a timely notice for trial de novo following mandatory arbitration may amend that notice after the 20-day filing period has expired.
- Whether the omitted party's amendment may relate back to a timely notice filed by nonaggrieved parties.
- Whether the civil rules, including CR 15 and CR 60, permit amendment or correction of an untimely or defective notice for trial de novo despite the mandatory arbitration rules.
- Whether Wiley was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under MAR 7.3 and RCW 7.06.060.
Holdings
- A party seeking a trial de novo after mandatory arbitration must be named in and timely serve and file the notice required by MAR 7.1(a); an omitted party may not be added after the 20-day period has expired.
- The Rehaks' notice was a nullity because neither Rehak was an aggrieved party, and Prueitt could not amend or relate his untimely request back to that null notice.
- CR 15, CR 60, and other civil rules cannot be used to amend or correct a notice for trial de novo in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory arbitration rules or to circumvent MAR 7.1's 20-day deadline.
- Wiley was entitled to attorney fees because Prueitt failed to improve his position by failing to comply with the requirements for proceeding to a trial de novo.
Key quotations
“Prueitt's name was not listed in a timely notice for a trial de novo.” (407)
“Since the notice was a nullity, the trial court abused its discretion in granting Prueitt's motion to amend a null notice under CR 15.” (408)
“Attorney fees are assessed against a party who fails to improve his or her position as to an adverse party's claim because they failed to comply with the requirements for proceeding to a trial de novo, such as MAR 7.1(a).” (409)
Factual background
Leslie Wiley was injured in a two-car collision and sued Frank and Dana Rehak before later adding Kevin Prueitt, who had been driving the vehicle. Mandatory arbitration resulted in a finding that Prueitt was 100 percent at fault. Within the applicable period, the Rehaks filed a notice for trial de novo, but Prueitt was not named in it. Four months later, Prueitt sought to amend the notice and relate the amendment back, asserting that his omission was a scrivener's error.
Procedural history
After a mandatory arbitration award found Prueitt 100 percent at fault, the Rehaks timely filed a notice for trial de novo, but Prueitt was not named. Prueitt later moved to amend the notice to add himself and to relate the amendment back to the original filing date; the superior court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, remanded for judgment on the arbitration award, and awarded Wiley attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed.