§54.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§54.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section discusses important Washington case law addressing CR54.

(1)Definitions

An oral decision is not a judgment and the trial court can freely change its mind until a formal judgment is rendered. Fosbre v. State, 70 Wn.2d 578, 424 P.2d 901 (1967).

A letter from the trial court to counsel advising them of the disposition of the case is not a judgment. State v.Aleshire, 89 Wn.2d 67, 568P.2d799 (1977).

A memorandum opinion is not a judgment. Chandler v. Doran Co., 44 Wn.2d 396, 267 P.2d 907 (1954).

Each subdivision of the rule defines a different category of judicial determination. The terms "final judgment," "order," and "final order made after judgment" each describe different acts. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Marshall, 16 Wn.App. 503, 507, 557 P.2d 352 (1976), review denied, 89 Wn.2d 1007 (1977).

A memorandum opinion that does not contain a caption entitling it an order or judgment and does not direct that any action take place does not constitute a final judgment and does not satisfy the definition of the term "decision." State v. Knox, 86 Wn.App. 831, 939 P.2d 710 (1997), overruled on other grounds by State v. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 62 P.3d 489 (2003).

(2)Finality of judgment

The trial court is free to consider other evidence on a motion for reconsideration after ruling on a motion for summary judgment if the trial court's decision was not a final judgment. Shoening v. Grays Harbor Cmty Hosp., 40 Wn.App. 331, 698P.2d593, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1008 (1985).

A decree is not final until signed and entered by the trial court. The oral announcement from the bench is used as guidance in preparation of written findings that, when prepared, signed, and entered, form the basis for entry of the judgment. Pratt v. Pratt, 99 Wn.2d 905, 665P.2d400 (1983).

An oral decision rendered at the conclusion of trial is not a final judgment and is subject to change until reduced to a written judgment and filed with the court clerk. Marsh v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 57 Wn.App. 610, 789P.2d792, review denied, 115 Wn.2d 1025 (1990).

A judgment was not entered and the time for appeal did not begin to run when the signed judgment was handed to the deputy clerk after closing time of the clerk's office and the judgment was placed in the deputy clerk's drawer, even though the appellant's counsel knew that the judgment had been signed. Malott v. Randall, 83 Wn.2d 259, 517P.2d605.

(3)Multiple claims or multiple parties

Factors the court should consider in determining whether there is just reason for delay include: (1) the relationship between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) whether questions that would be reviewed on appeal are still before the trial court for determination in the unadjudicated part of the case; (3) whether it is likely that the need for review may be mooted by future developments in the trial court; (4) whether an immediate appeal will delay the trial of the unadjudicated matters without gaining any offsetting advantage in terms of the simplification and facilitation of the trial; and (5) the practical effects of allowing an immediate appeal. Lindsay Credit Corp. v. Skarperud, 33 Wn.App. 766, 657 P.2d 804 (1983).

A partial summary judgment is not a final judgment unless expressly made so. Shepherd v. Cont'l Bank, 28 Wn.App. 346, 622 P.2d 1310, review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1019 (1981).

Entry of final judgment under CR 54(b) requires that there be more than one claim for relief or more than one party against whom relief is sought; that there be an express determination in the judgment that there is no just reason for delay; and that there be an express direction for entry of judgment. Doerflinger v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 88 Wn.2d 878, 567 P.2d 230 (1977).

The trial court's discretion in determining whether to certify finality of a judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties should be exercised in the interest of sound judicial administration. The appellate court has authority to review the determination for abuse of discretion. Lindsay Credit Corp, 33 Wn.App. 766.

The appellate court has authority to review for abuse of discretion the trial court's determination relative to the existence of multiple claims or parties and to make its own determination. Schiffman v. Hanson Excavating Co., 82 Wn.2d 681, 513 P.2d 29 (1973). Atrial court may deny a request for certification for the following reasons: "(1) to offset judgments favorable to each side before any enforcement activity takes place; (2) to preclude the disruptive effects of enforcement and appellate activity while trial court proceedings are still ongoing; and (3) to avoid a multiplicity of appeals." Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders withEthics & Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119 Wn.App. 665, 694, 82P.3d1199, review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1023 (2004).

The purpose of the rule allowing entry of judgment as to some of multiple claims or parties is to avoid possible injustice from delay in entering judgment until final adjudication of the entire case. There must be a showing of some danger of hardship or injustice that would be alleviated by immediate appeal, however, to justify entry of judgment under CR 54(b). Doerflinger, 88 Wn.2d 878.

When a dismissal order did not contain an express determination that there was no just reason for...