§ 5.2 Who Initiates Review

JurisdictionWashington

§5.2 WHO INITIATES REVIEW

Only an aggrieved party may seek appellate review. When opposing parties are both aggrieved, cross review may result. The rules provide for substitution of parties and consolidation of cases in appropriate situations.

(1) Aggrieved party initiates review

RAP 3.1 provides explicitly that "[o]nly an aggrieved party may seek review by the appellate court," whether on appeal or by discretionary review. The courts often refer to this requirement as a party's "standing" to seek review. E.g., Madison v. State, 161 Wn.2d 85, 109-10, 163 P.3d 757 (2007) (respondents who were not aggrieved by the trial court's ruling did not have "standing" to bring cross appeal). Opposing parties can both be aggrieved, resulting in cross review.

The rule comprises two requirements: (1) only a party below may seek review, and (2) that party must be aggrieved by the decision below.

Just as rules relating to standing abound with exceptions, courts sometimes ignore the RAP 3.1 requirement that a party be "aggrieved" when doing so will "promote justice" as contemplated by RAP 1.2. The Supreme Court has stated that "[r]eview is appropriate in this rare situation where an incorrect holding will have sweeping implications but does not actually render a party 'aggrieved' within RAP 3.1." State v. Watson, 155 Wn.2d 574, 578, 122 P.3d 903 (2005) (involving implications of drug offender sentencing alternatives (DOSA) beyond the facts of the case decided); see also State v. Hathaway, 161 Wn. App. 634, 651-52, 251 P.3d 253 (waiving rule's requirements will "serve the ends of justice" by resolving purely legal question more promptly and simply), review denied, 172 Wn.2d 1021 (2011).

(a) Must be a party

Generally, only a party to the action below can be an "aggrieved party" on appeal. For example, an organization that was not a party to the trial court action could not seek review, Sheets v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Keglers, 34 Wn.2d 851, 855-56, 210 P.2d 690 (1949) (prerule case); an insurer that had settled with the insured plaintiff and was dismissed from the trial court action was not a party to the action and, therefore, not an aggrieved party having a right to seek review, Polygon Nw. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 143 Wn. App. 753, 765, 189 P.3d 777, review denied, 164 Wn.2d 1033 (2008); a person who opted out of a class settlement was not a party to the action and could not object to the settlement on appeal, Aguirre v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 109 Wn. App. 80, 85, 33 P.3d 1110 (2001), review denied, 146 Wn.2d 1017 (2002); and a lawyer who was removed and replaced as a guardian could not seek review on the beneficiary's behalf, In re Guardianship of Lasky, 54 Wn. App. 841, 850, 776 P.2d 695 (1989).

A lawyer sanctioned under CR 11 is an "aggrieved party" for the purpose of seeking review of the sanction order. Splash Design, Inc. v. Lee, 104 Wn. App. 38, 44, 14 P.3d 879, review denied, 143 Wn.2d 1022 (2001). A lawyer is not a party, is not aggrieved by rulings that cannot be enforced directly against the lawyer, and may not (as a party) seek review of rulings affecting the client. Johnson v. Jones, 91 Wn. App. 127, 138, 955 P.2d 826 (1998). Conversely, clients are not aggrieved by, and may not appeal, sanctions enforceable only against their lawyers. Breda v. B.P.O. Elks Lake City 1800 So-620, 120 Wn. App. 351, 352-53, 90 P.3d 1079 (2004). Sanctions imposed on both the lawyer and client are subject to review at the behest of either or both the lawyer and client. Truong v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 151 Wn. App. 195, 207, 211 P.3d 430 (2009).

Quasi-judicial agencies that are not parties to the action are generally not permitted to seek review of adverse court decisions. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 121 Wn.2d 776, 781, 854 P.2d 611 (1993). A quasi-judicial agency may seek review, however, if the court ruling affects the integrity of the agency's procedures. Mestrovac v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn. App. 693, 704, 176 P.3d 536 (2008) (trial court's ruling imposed on agency the burden of paying interpreter costs), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Kustura v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wn.2d 81, 233 P.3d 853 (2010).

Individuals who are not formal parties to trial court proceedings may sometimes appeal if they are sufficiently aggrieved by the trial court's decision. State v. G.A.H., 133 Wn. App. 567, 574-75, 137 P.3d 66 (2006). In G.A.H., the Court of Appeals held that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), which was not a party to the trial court action, could appeal a ruling requiring it to find foster care for the juvenile defendant. See also State v. Casey, 7 Wn. App. 923, 926-28, 503 P.2d 1123 (1972) (prerule) (although statute required that filiation proceedings be brought by state, nonparty mother/complainant was real party in interest and could seek review when state declined to do so), review denied, 82 Wn.2d 1001 (1973).

Comm
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT