§13.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§13.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

CR 13 serves to provide complete relief to the parties, conserve judicial resources, and avoid the proliferation of lawsuits. The court has discretion, however, to dismiss or separate properly pleaded counterclaims when the counterclaims would unduly prejudice the plaintiff's original claim or unduly complicate the proceedings. In the absence of Washington case law, Washington courts will look to federal decisions to interpret the rule. Warren, Little & Lund, Inc. v. Max J. Kuney Co.,115 Wn.2d 211, 215-16, 796 P.2d 1263 (1990); Lane v. Skamania County, 164 Wn.App. 490, 500, 265 P.3d 156 (2011).

(1)Compulsory counterclaims

The "same transaction or occurrence" language of the rule should be interpreted liberally to serve the considerations of judicial economy, fairness, and convenience embodied in the rule; the "logical relationship" test should be used, and the failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim in a federal action bars the pleader from subsequently bringing that claim in state court. Schoeman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.,106 Wn.2d 855, 864, 726 P.2d 1 (1986).

Compulsory counterclaims not pleaded in a responsive pleading or set up by amendment under CR 13(f) cannot later be asserted in a different action. Moritzky v. Heberlein,40 Wn.App. 181, 183, 697 P.2d 1023 (1985).

Claims that have not yet matured at the time the answer is served do not constitute compulsory counterclaims, but if the claims have matured before the service of the claimant's last responsive pleading, they are barred if not pleaded. Tallman v. Durussel,44 Wn.App. 181, 184-85, 721P.2d985, review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1013 (1986).

Compulsory counterclaims not pleaded prior to mandatory arbitration may not be added after arbitration by a motion to amend. Wilson v. Horsley,137 Wn.2d 500, 974P.2d316 (1999).

When a cause of action is asserted as a counterclaim, the time for filing is governed by CR 13(a) and CR 15(c). Steinberg v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank,66 Wn.App. 402, 832P.2d124 (1992).

Counterclaims ordinarily may not be asserted in an unlawful detainer action, even if they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Hous.Auth. of Everett v. Terry,114 Wn.2d 558,570, 789 P.2d 745 (1990). Counterclaims will be permitted in an unlawful detainer action when resolution of the counterclaim is necessary to determine the right to possession. Kelly v. Powell,55 Wn.App. 143, 150, 776 P.2d 996 (1989).

A counterclaim for defense and indemnity arising from the same...