February 2008

Bar News welcomes letters from readers. We do not run letters that have been printed in, or are pending before, other legal publications with overlapping readership. Letters must be 250 words in length or less, and e-mailed to letterstotheeditor@wsba.org or mailed to: WSBA, Attn. Letters to the Editor, 1325 Fourth Ave., Ste. 600, Seattle, WA 98101-2539. Bar News reserves the right to edit letters. Bar News does not print anonymous letters, or more than one submission per month from the same contributor.

Missing y’all

Every month, I looked forward to reading Lindsay Thompson’s column. It was literate, entertaining, sometimes folksy, and always informative. Thompson had a common sense and balanced perspective of bar issues, often accented by the values of his southern upbringing. His prose was a refreshing change from the tedious jargon and irritating polemics of most of the legal commentary out there. I’m sorry to see him move on.

Len Stevens, Portland, Oregon

Font of information

I want to offer my sincere thanks to the Washington Legislative Information Center, which recently made a beneficial change to the webpage used to search for RCWs and WACs (see www.leg.wa.gov). As many of you have experienced, when an RCW or WAC is opened on the Legislative webpage, the color, size, and style of font used for its various components (header, text, and footnote) are different. Consequently, if you cut and paste the cite directly from the webpage to an e-mail/Word file you have to alter these attributes to create an acceptable looking document. After explaining the problem, the Legislative Information Center has now changed the “Print Version” of both the RCWs and WACs on the website, which now shows these laws in black Arial text using one font size. This small inconvenience has now been repealed, and it did not take an act of Eyman, just a simple request from a member of the Bar. Thank you.

Bill Fosbre, Tacoma

Which three days?!

Just in time for the holidays, the Supreme Court decided Christensen v. Ellsworth, case number 79128-7. On the merits, the case is a win for landlords and a loss for tenants. From a practicing lawyer’s standpoint, it is a bad decision. The issue is simple: A landlord may not commence an eviction action until three days have passed after service of a notice to pay or vacate. RCW 59.12.030(3). Like many statutes, this one does not state whether the three days are calendar days or business days. However, the time period is crucial as the Court has determined that its passage is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing the suit.

Without dissent, the Court ruled that the three days are calendar days. This critically shortens the time available for tenants to work out the problem and increases litigation. So, Tiny Tim, Scrooge can evict your family on the Tuesday following any of the half-dozen three day holidays, including in some years, Christmas. But I don’t expect the Court to have compassion for the poor.

I do expect though, that I be able to practice law. For 30 years, whenever a landlord or tenant asked me the question presented to the Court, I have replied with confidence: When a statue is unclear, we turn to Civil Rule 6, which applies “in computing any period of time prescribed … by any applicable statue,” and all is made certain: do not count weekends and holidays. Most landlords have learned this rule. Now, with much learned discussion, the Court has blown all that certainty and simplicity out the window. It seems that not all statutes are “applicable”; not all jurisdictional prerequisites are part of a “proceeding.” Which ones those might be is anybody’s guess.

I wish the Court would not attempt to decide a landlord-tenant issue without the benefit of amicus curiae briefs. Every jot and tittle of that statute is a political compromise. Every word has been parsed in trial courts. The Court should allow itself to be enlightened by practitioners in the field before it tinkers with settled doctrine.

Terrence V. Sawyer, Spokane