Advocates for Responsible Development and John E. Diehl v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Mason County and Shaw Family, LLC

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that an appeal was not frivolous because it presented at least one debatable issue, including whether a nonlawyer could represent an environmental organization in court. The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ award of attorney fees as sanctions under RAP 18.9(a).

Holdings

1. An appeal is not frivolous in its entirety when it raises at least one debatable issue upon which reasonable minds might differ or for which reversal is possible.
2. The argument that Diehl could represent the association in court was not so devoid of merit as to be frivolous, even though the court did not hold that the argument had merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals properly imposed attorney-fee sanctions under RAP 18.9(a) on the ground that the appeal was frivolous.
2. Whether an appeal is frivolous in its entirety when at least one issue raised presents a debatable question on which reasonable minds could differ.

Disposition

reversed