§69.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§69.6 ANALYSIS

The civil rules assume the discovery process will occur before a judgment is entered. But obtaining a money judgment is only half the battle—collecting it is another matter. CR 69 is the only civil rule that governs postjudgment discovery, and it primarily defers to statutory mechanisms meant to help judgment creditors execute their judgments. Very little case law exists in Washington discussing the parameters of CR 69. Most of the case law about execution and judgments interprets the statutory provisions that govern these practices. Even the federal counterpart, FED. R. CIV. P. 69, has scant judicial interpretation. Because the majority of the rule cross-references other procedural rules (e.g., pretrial deposition rules) or statutes, CR 69 does not itself contain much guidance for the practitioner.

This chapter will first briefly address arguments to original and appellate jurisdiction that have been raised regarding CR 69. Then, three main areas under the rule will be considered in this section: (1) the relationship between procedural rules and statutory enforcement provisions; (2) using discovery in aid of execution, and (3) the scope of post judgment discovery. Finally, this chapter discusses when the three main areas of discovery are best used to uncover information about a judgment debtor's assets.

Comment: A judgment creditor must have a valid judgment before the creditor can avail him- or herself of the execution procedures under the civil rules or the statutes. Execution on a judgment is limited to within the first 10 years after the entry of judgment or the filing of the judgment in Washington. RCW 6.17.020(1). Within 90 days of a judgment's expiration, a court may extend the life of the judgment for another 10 years, and this extension is granted as a matter of right upon motion by a party. RCW 6.17.020(3).

(1)Jurisdiction

This subsection addresses issues concerning original and appellate jurisdiction under CR 69.

(a)Original jurisdiction

It is well-settled law that supplementary proceedings in aid of execution, whether statutory or procedural, "are not a new suit or separate action." State v. Superior Court, 152 Wash. 323, 326, 277 P. 850 (1929) (construing statute substantially identical to Chapter 6.32 RCW's current requirements).

(b)Appellate jurisdiction

Order compelling discovery. An order compelling a party to respond to a postjudgment discovery request is not a final order and is not appealable. Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp., 680 F.2d 743, 745-46 (11th Cir. 1982). The party objecting to the discovery order can appeal a later judgment that disposes of property learned of through the disputed discovery, or the party can choose not to respond and risk a contempt citation (which is appealable). Id. at 746.

Order denying discovery. An order denying postjudgment discovery is a final order subject to review on appeal. Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 664 F.2d 260, 262 (11th Cir. 1981).

(2)Procedures generally

CR 69(a) preserves the statutory practice for the enforcement of judgments, and the statutory provisions override procedural requirements contained only in the civil rules. For example, a court may issue an injunction enjoining the transfer or disposition of property in supplemental proceedings pursuant to RCW 6.32.120, even if the requirements of CR 65 are not met. See CR 69(a) (providing that the statutory provisions take precedence over the civil rules); Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. [Gina]Rogers, 34 Wn.App. 105, 119, 660 P.2d 280, review denied, 99 Wn.2d 1019 (1983); accord Bergen Indus. & Fishing Corp. v. Joint Stock Holding Co. Dalmoreproduct, 126 Wn.App. 1039 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1004 (2006) (unpublished) (holding that CR 65(c) bond requirement did not apply to injunctions granted in supplemental proceedings as they were governed by statute instead).

Practice Tip:

...