§63.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§63.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1)Washington

A successor judge has no power to act under CR 63 unless findings of fact or conclusions of law were entered by the trial judge. DGHI, Enters, v. Pac. Cities,Inc.,137 Wn.2d 933,941-42, 977P.2d1231 (1999). In DGHI, the predecessor trial judge did not sign and file the findings and conclusions prior to his death. The court noted that "CR 63(b) is unambiguous in its requirement that findings of fact and conclusions of law must be filed before a successor judge may perform the duties of a predecessor judge who cannot perform those duties because of death, sickness or other disability." Id. at 941. As a result, the court held that a successor judge could not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law following the death of the original judge and determined that petitioner's motion for a new trial should have been granted. Id. at 950-51; see also WESCO Distrib., Inc. v. M.A. Mortenson Co.,88 Wn.App. 712, 719,946 P.2d 413 (1997) (successor judge cannot merely sign and file findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the transcript of the predecessor judge's oral ruling).

Whether findings of fact and conclusions of law are "filed" or "entered" is determined by CR 52. The transcript of an oral ruling by the predecessor judge is not sufficient to serve as findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of CR 63. WESCO Distrib., 88 Wn.App. at 716-19; see also CR 52(a)(4).

Whether the predecessor judge's memorandum opinion meets the requirements of CR 63(b) is a question of law subject to de novo review by an appellate court. Evans v. Evans, 130 Wn.App. 1053, No. 32357-5-II, 2005 WL 3476523, at *3 (Dec. 20,2005), review denied, 158 Wn.2d 1003 (2006) (unpublished). Although it is an unpublished decision, the court in Evans analyzes whether a memorandum opinion contains information that is sufficiently equivalent to formal findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of CR 63(b). Thus, this case may be helpful in a situation in which a written, signed opinion contains the equivalent of formal findings of fact and conclusions of law even though the content is not labeled as such.

If resolution of the case following disability of the predecessor judge requires the judge to make findings of fact and the parties will not stipulate to proceeding with the successor judge using the original trial court record, the successor judge must grant a new trial. In re Marriage ofCrosetto, 101 Wn.App. 89...