§58.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§58.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

The following sections address cases that discuss judgments under CR58.

(1)CR 58(a) and (b)

A judgment is not deemed entered until it is lodged in the office of the clerk. It is insufficient to merely place the judgment in the custody of the clerk or the clerk's agent if the judgment is not also deposited in the place where such a record is usually kept. Malott v. Randall,83 Wn.2d 259 (1974).

An oral opinion is not a judgment. The court may freely change its mind until formal judgment is entered pursuant to CR 58. See Cams v. Shirley,44 Wn.2d 662, 269 P.2d 804 (1954).

Ajudgment is "deemed entered for all procedural purposes from the time of delivery to the clerk for filing," not receipt of the judgment by the parties. CR 58(b). Because CR 6(b) does not permit enlargement of the time for filing a motion to reconsider, the trial court has no discretion to extend the time for filing a motion to reconsider. Metz v. Sarandos,91 Wn.App. 357, 360, 957P.2d795 (1998); accord Kaech v. Lewis Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 106 Wn.App. 260, 23P.3d529 (2001), review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1020 (2002). Correspondingly, the 30-day period within which to file an appeal under RAP 5.2(a) begins to run from entry of judgment, not from service of a conformed copy of the judgment. Beckman v. Dep't ofSoc. & Health Servs., 102 Wn.App. 687, 11P.3d313 (2000).

(2)CR 58(c)

See discussion of CR 54(f) in Chapter 54 (Rule 54. Judgments and Costs) of this deskbook.

(3)CR 58(d)-(f)

Since the effective date of CR 58(d)-(f), no cases discussing these subsections to CR 58 have been reported.

(4)CR 58(g)

Pursuant to RCW 4.56.110, a court has no power to provide for payment of overdue maintenance without interest. In re Marriage of Sanborn,55 Wn.App. 124,777 P.2d 4 (1989). Accordingly, any judgment for unpaid child support that has accrued under a superior court order or an order entered under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW, must bear interest at the rate of 12 percent.

In the context of dissolution actions, the trial court has discretion to reduce the rate of interest on deferred payments. In re Marriage of Stenshoel,72 Wn.App. 800, 811, 866P.2d635 (1993). However, the trial court abuses this discretion if it provides for an interest rate below the statutory rate without giving adequate reasons for doing so. In re Marriage of Knight,75 Wn.App. 721, 731, 880P.2d71 (1994), review denied,126 Wn.2d 1011 (1995).

Postjudgment interest is simple rather than compound interest. Caruso v. Local Union No. 690,50 Wn.App. 688, 749P.2d1304 (1988).

The...