MAR 6.3 says that in the absence of a timely request for a trial de novo, the arbitrator’s award shall be memorialized in the form of a superior court judgment. The rule goes on to say that such a judgment is not subject to appeal but may be challenged by a motion to vacate under CR 60.

But a clearly stated rule does not always yield one, undebatable result. Despite the straightforward statement in MAR 6.3, borderline situations continue to arise – 30 years after the rule was adopted in 1980.

In a landlord-tenant dispute, the tenant (P) sued the landlord (D), seeking damages for property allegedly destroyed by D. P sought damages for loss of the property and emotional distress, plus attorney fees and costs.

On a standard form used under MPR 1.2 (matters subject to arbitration), P stated that the total damages exceeded $50,000, but that for purposes of qualifying for arbitration, P waived claims in excess of that amount.

The case went to mandatory arbitration, where P was awarded $45,000 in damages, $27,300 in attorney fees, and $975 in statutory costs. According to the court, D requested a trial de novo but then withdrew the request.

D then sought entry of a judgment on the arbitrator’s award, but with a modification. D argued that under applicable statutes, the arbitrator had no authority to award a total amount exceeding $50,000, plus statutory costs and interest.

The trial court disagreed with D. The trial court ruled that the $27,300 in attorney fees did not count towards the $50,000 maximum and refused to reduce the total amount awarded by the arbitrator.

After the trial court entered a judgment confirming the full amount awarded by the arbitrator, D filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

P then moved to have D’s appeal dismissed on the basis that under MAR 6.3, the judgment was not appealable. D responded by arguing that an appeal should be allowed if the claimed error concerns a defect inherent in the judgment, or the means by which the judgment was obtained.

The Court of Appeals agreed with P and dismissed the appeal. The court said that if D believed the judgment was inherently defective, or that it was obtained by improper means, D’s remedy was a motion to vacate under CR 60. The court said the judgment on the arbitration award could not be challenged by an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Period. End of story.

Lest the reader miss the point, the Court of Appeals then awarded additional attorney fees to P for having to respond to D’s frivolous appeal. Dill v. Michelson Realty Co., 152 Wn.App. 815, 219 P.3d 726 (2009) (Div.2, Van Deren, J.).

The articles reprinted here are excerpted from Karl Tegland’s monthly newsletter, Litigation Today. Each issue of Litigation Today includes Mr. Tegland’s commentary and practice tips in the areas of evidence, civil procedure, appellate procedure, and the right to confrontation. Each issue also includes an in-depth essay on a selected topic, complete coverage of all rule amendments, and citations to leading law review articles from the preceding month.

Litigation Today has been published continuously for 22 years.

For more information and a complimentary sample copy of Litigation Today, contact Karl Tegland at KarlTegland@aol.com.