Morin v. Burris

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court consolidated three cases concerning whether prelitigation communications or other informal conduct constituted an appearance entitling defendants to notice before entry of default judgment. The court rejected the informal-appearance doctrine as formulated by the lower courts, holding that prelitigation communications alone do not satisfy the appearance requirement under Washington's civil rules. It reinstated the default judgments in Morin and Matia and remanded Gutz for consideration of equitable and CR 60 grounds for relief.

Holdings

1. A party's prelitigation communications or merely expressed intent to defend do not constitute an appearance in court and cannot, standing alone, entitle the party to notice of a default judgment hearing. After service of a summons and complaint, the party must take some action acknowledging that the dispute is in court, although substantial compliance may be informal.
2. The defendants in Morin and Matia did not substantially comply with the appearance rules because they took no action acknowledging that their disputes were pending in court. They were not entitled to notice of the default hearings and did not establish mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, or inequitable conduct warranting vacation of the judgments.
3. The Gutz defendants made a sufficient showing that their failure to appear may have been excused by diligence and opposing counsel's possible concealment of the pending litigation and default proceedings. The default judgment was therefore vacated and the case remanded for the trial court to determine whether the requirements of White and/or CR 60(b)(1) or (4) were satisfied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether prelitigation communications or other conduct showing an intent to defend can constitute an appearance entitling a defendant to notice of a motion for default under Washington Civil Rules 4 and 55.
2. Whether defendants in Morin and Matia substantially complied with the appearance requirement or otherwise established grounds under CR 60 or equitable principles to vacate their default judgments.
3. Whether the Gutz defendants were entitled to further consideration of vacation of their default judgment under White v. Holm and CR 60 based on possible diligence, excusable neglect, or inequitable concealment by opposing counsel.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded