§52.3 Historical Development

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§52.3HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The history of CR 52(a) exhibits the erosion of the differences between cases at law and cases in equity.

Since 1854, Washington has required written findings in all cases at law tried without a jury. Laws of 1854, §205, p. 168; Laws of 1877, §250, p. 51; Code of 1881, §246; Rem. Rev. Stat. §367; RCW 4.44.050 (repealed by Laws of 1985, ch. 68, §1); see CR 52(a); Colvin v. Clark,83 Wash. 376, 380, 145 P. 419 (1915), aff'd,96 Wash. 282, 165 P. 101 (1917). Findings, however, were not required for actions in equity. See Black v. Porter,31 Wn.2d 664,667,198P.2d670 (1948); WishkahBoom Co. v. Greenwood Timber Co.,100 Wash. 472, 476, 171 P. 234 (1918).

Historically, findings of fact in an equity case were subject to de novo review. Laws of 1893 at p. 130. In an equitable action, findings were given less weight on appeal than jury verdicts. If a fair preponderance of the evidence did not support the findings, then the appellate court could disregard the findings. Roberts v. Wash. Nat'lBank,11 Wash. 550, 553,40 P. 225 (1895). Whether the legislature had a constitutional right to regulate the scope of appellate review by the court was subject to debate. See Darnell v. Noel,34 Wn.2d 428,430-31,208 P.2d 1194 (1949); Jo L. Pitts, Where Fundamental Constitutional Rights Are Involved, the Court May Re-examine Findings of Fact Which Are Supported by Substantial Evidence, 17 Gonz. L. Rev. 185, 188-89 & nn.14-16 (1981).

In 1951, the Washington Supreme...