§2.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§2.6ANALYSIS

Consistent with the minimal requirements of notice pleading and the view that disputes should be resolved on the merits, CR 2 reflects the principle that claims should not be dismissed simply because a party mistakenly seeks a legal remedy when the only available relief is equitable, or vice versa. If a party's pleading is sufficient to state a claim under the liberal notice pleading standard (see CR 8(a)), recovery should not be barred because of a formal misnomer in the pleading. The form of action does not matter if a party alleges facts that warrant relief. Dunlap v. Rauch, 24 Wash. 620, 623, 64 P. 807 (1901); Dormitzer v.German Sav. & Loan Soc'y, 23 Wash. 132, 190, 62 P. 862 (1900), aff'd, 192 U.S. 125 (1904); accord Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 539-40, 90 S. Ct. 733, 24 L. Ed. 2d 729 (1970).

Although CR 2 removes the need to formally label a proceeding as either legal or equitable, the historical distinction between the two forms of action remains important. Most significantly, the right to a jury trial applies to actions at law, while actions that are purely equitable in nature are to be decided by the court. Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 94 Wn.2d 359, 365, 617 P.2d 704 (1980) (analyzing causes presenting a mixture of legal and equitable issues). Additionally, characterization of an action may affect the remedies available. SeeYountv.IndianolaBeachEstates, Inc., 63 Wn.2d 519, 524, 387 P.2d 975 (1964) (distinguishing between equitable and legal remedies of rescission and damages for a breach of contract); Peterson v.Boyd, 46 Wn.2d 97, 99-100, 278 P.2d 400 (1955) (same).

Nor should CR 2 be read as making the civil rules applicable to all...