§46.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§46.6ANALYSIS

To preserve error, you must apprise the trial court of the objection, the grounds for objection, and the theories of law that support your position, to give the court an opportunity to correct a mistake in time to avoid unnecessary retrials. Tunney v. Seattle Mental Health Rehab. Inst., 83 Wn.2d 695, 697, 521 P.2d 932 (1974); Lahmann v. Sisters of St. Francis ofPhila., 55 Wn.App. 716, 723, 780 P.2d 868 (1989);Ryan v. Westgard, 12 Wn.App. 500,510,530 P.2d 687 (1975). Raising the issue for the first time on a motion for reconsideration generally is not sufficient. Browne v. Cassidy, 46 Wn.App. 267, 270, 728 P.2d 1388 (1986); cf. Newcomer v. Masini, 45 Wn.App. 284, 287, 724P.2d1122 (1986) (issue raised for the first time on motion for reconsideration will be considered if it did not involve consideration of new facts). But see Reitz v. Knight, 62 Wn.App. 575, 581, 814P.2d1212 (1991) (clarifying the rule in Newcomer, 45 Wn.App. at 287, regarding the consideration of additional argument or materials). The court inReitz allowed consideration of a legal theory developed on a motion for reconsideration. The court noted that "[i]n a non-jury trial, an issue or theory not dependent upon new facts may be raised for the first time through a motion for reconsideration and thereby be preserved for appellate review." 62 Wn.App. at 581 n.4.

Also instructive is Nail v. Consolidated Resources Health Care Fund 1,155 Wn.App...