Opinion ID: 4577342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Ronald and King County assert that the time to properly challenge the order has passed. They argue that because this is a collateral challenge, even if the 1985 Order is erroneous, it was entered with proper jurisdiction and is merely voidable. Olympic, Snohomish County, and Woodway claim that the order is void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and can be struck down at any time. The 16 No. 97599-0 parties further dispute the circumstances under which an order may be declared void. Relevant to the issue here, our jurisprudence has established that “[t]here are in general three jurisdictional elements in every valid judgment, namely, jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction of the person, and the power or authority to render the particular judgment. For the absence of any one of these elements, when properly apparent, the judgment may be vacated at any time.” John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gooley, 196 Wash. 357, 370, 83 P.2d 221 (1938) (quoting 1 A.C. FREEMAN, A TREATISE OF THE LAW OF JUDGMENTS § 226 (5th ed. rev. 1925)). Here, the latter two jurisdictional elements are implicated: personal jurisdiction and authority to render a particular judgment, which in modern cases has been recognized as a component of subject matter jurisdiction. The 1985 Order is flawed in both ways. First, Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway were not parties to the 1985 superior court action, so the court did not have the authority to enter an order affecting their sewerage service rights. These entities were not joined as necessary parties under CR 19 or given personal notice of the 1985 action. To determine whether joinder is needed for a just adjudication, courts engage in a three-step analysis. Courts determine whether the absent party is necessary, whether joinder is feasible, and, if joinder is unavailable, whether the action should still proceed without the party. Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wn.2d 214, 221-22, 285 17 No. 97599-0 P.3d 52 (2012). An absentee is a necessary party where they claim a legally protected interest in the action and their ability to protect that interest will be impaired or impeded by adjudication in their absence. Auto. United, 175 Wn.2d at 223. Point Wells was located within the geographic boundaries of Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway. The purported transfer and annexation of the Point Wells service area to Ronald directly implicated their interests in the provision of sewerage service to Point Wells. In particular, Olympic possessed the primary authority to provide service to Point Wells, and the 1985 Order purports to extinguish and reassign that authority. Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway were necessary parties and joinder would have been feasible. Ronald and King County assert that the 1985 action was an in rem proceeding and is binding on nonparties. They claim that they followed the required notice procedures of former RCW 36.94.410-.440. As we discussed above, former RCW 36.94.410-.440 does not permit the transfer and annexation of territory outside the transferring county’s geographic boundary, so compliance with this procedure was inadequate to adjudicate the annexation of Point Wells. Assuming their characterization of the 1985 proceeding as in rem is correct, it does not excuse their failure to join or adequately notify parties with legally protected interests. See Port of Grays Harbor v. Bankr. Estate of Roderick Timber Co., 73 Wn. App. 334, 18 No. 97599-0 869 P.2d 417 (1994) (discussing the required joinder of a party in an in rem condemnation proceeding). There were two layers of notice required here. At minimum, due process requires that in “any proceeding which is to be accorded finality” notice must be given and “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950) (emphasis added). Further, to obtain personal jurisdiction over a party, Washington law requires that “‘[b]eyond due process [requirements], statutory service requirements must be complied with in order for the court to finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties.’” Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wn.2d 726, 734, 903 P.2d 455 (1995) (second alteration in original) (quoting Thayer v. Edmonds, 8 Wn. App. 36, 40, 503 P.2d 1110 (1972)). Ronald and King County failed to comply with these requirements. Notices of the King County Council hearing and 1985 court hearing were published in the newspaper. Assuming these notices were constitutionally adequate, service by publication remained unavailable. Service by publication is reserved for those instances where the party cannot be found within the state. RCW 4.28.100. Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway were not served with process. As a result, the 1985 court never obtained personal jurisdiction over these entities. 19 No. 97599-0 We previously held that the municipal court lacked the authority to issue relief that implicated the interests of a nonparty. City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 128 Wn.2d 492, 502, 909 P.2d 1294 (1996). The municipal court declined to order the State to reimburse the litigant under RCW 9A.16.110 because the State was not a party and had no notice of the action. We held that the municipal court acted properly and was “without authority to order an entity that is not a party to the litigation to do anything.” Fontanilla, 128 Wn.2d at 502. This is consistent with the general rule that a judgment is not binding on an entity that has not been made a party to the action by service of process. Similarly, in this case Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway were not made parties to the 1985 action, although they possessed a legally protected interest over sewerage service in Point Wells. The 1985 court failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over these parties and, thus, lacked the authority to issue an annexation order that implicated their rights and interests. To the extent that it did so here, that portion of the 1985 Order is void. Second, the 1985 Order is void because the court lacked the general statutory authority to order the annexation of Point Wells to Ronald. We take this opportunity to expound on the doctrine of subject matter jurisdiction. We hold that subject matter jurisdiction incorporates the court’s authority to issue a particular form of relief, as determined by the nature of the case. 20 No. 97599-0 In Marley v. Department of Labor & Industries, we reviewed an administrative denial of a worker’s compensation claim. 125 Wn.2d 533, 541, 886 P.2d 189 (1994). The plaintiff argued that the Department of Labor and Industries’ order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it incorrectly determined that she was living in a state of abandonment under RCW 51.08.020. We held that at most, the department made an erroneous decision regarding abandonment but it had proper jurisdiction to decide the claim, that is, whether Marley was living in a state of abandonment. We adopted the Restatement (Second) of Judgments’ approach to subject matter jurisdiction: “‘A judgment may properly be rendered against a party only if the court has authority to adjudicate the type of controversy involved in the action.’” Marley, 125 Wn.2d at 539 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 11 (AM. LAW INST. 1982)). We held that “[a] court or agency does not lack subject matter jurisdiction solely because it may lack authority to enter a given order.” Marley, 125 Wn.2d at 539 (emphasis added). Rather, a court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction when it attempts to decide a type of controversy over which it has no authority to adjudicate.” Marley, 125 Wn.2d at 539. This implies that the tribunal has “no authority to decide the claim at all, let alone order a particular kind of relief.” Marley, 125 Wn.2d at 539. Based on this discussion, Ronald claims that the court’s authority to enter a particular order is wholly separate from subject matter jurisdiction. However, our 21 No. 97599-0 discussion in Marley stands for the proposition that the court’s authority to enter a particular order is simply one part of subject matter jurisdiction. When determining subject matter jurisdiction, the controlling question is whether the court possessed the authority to adjudicate the type of controversy involved in the action. We defined “type of controversy” as referring to “the nature of a case and the kind of relief sought.” Dougherty v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 150 Wn.2d 310, 317, 76 P.3d 1183 (2003). Thus, subject matter jurisdiction is composed of two necessary components: (1) the authority to adjudicate the particular claim and (2) the authority to issue a particular form of relief. These two components are intertwined. The form of relief is limited by the nature of the particular claim. For example, in a quiet title property claim, the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is confined to issuing the appropriate relief, that is, to quiet title. The court would exceed its relief authority if it were to issue tax relief. To the extent an order did so, that portion of the order would be void. The dispositive inquiry to determine subject matter jurisdiction is whether the court had overall authority to adjudicate the particular claim, and the authority to issue a particular form of relief follows. Logically, we look to the relief issued because it is indicative of whether the court adjudicated a controversy that it should not have. Both are necessary components of subject matter jurisdiction. Although we reviewed a contempt order in Dike v. Dike, our discussion is informative here. 75 Wn.2d 1, 8, 448 P.2d 490 (1968). In that case, we held that 22 No. 97599-0 even where the underlying order is erroneous and the party fails to comply with it, the court maintains subject matter jurisdiction to enter a contempt order. We held that this was a legal error, not a jurisdictional deficiency. Notably, we distinguished that where the court “‘has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter, and has the power to make the order or rulings complained of, but the latter is based upon a mistaken view of the law or upon the erroneous application of legal principles, it is erroneous,’” as opposed to void for lack of jurisdiction. Dike, 75 Wn.2d at 7 (quoting Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 536, 25 S.E.2d 352 (1943)). The long-standing principle still applies that “‘[o]bviously the power to decide includes the power to decide wrong, and an erroneous decision is as binding as one that is correct until set aside or corrected.’” Dike, 75 Wn.2d at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Robertson, 181 Va. at 537). But legal errors occur within a court’s proper exercise of authority, where the court has the authority to adjudicate the claim and errs in its application of law or fact. Whereas, jurisdictional deficiencies result from a court acting outside of its adjudicative authority where it lacks any power to issue relief. The distinction between the error in this case and the potential errors discussed in Marley and Dike is that those courts were authorized to exercise discretion and, at best, merely exercised that discretion improperly. Here, the 1985 court was not statutorily authorized to exercise any discretion over the annexation 23 No. 97599-0 of Point Wells. The nature of this controversy is annexation. Annexation authority is a plenary power enjoyed by the State, which the legislature may delegate to courts by statute. Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791, 83 P.3d 419 (2004). In this case, former RCW 36.94.410-.440 is a grant of authority from the legislature, allowing superior courts to effectuate the transfer and annexation of service area from a county to a sewer district. As discussed above, former RCW 36.94.410-.440 limited the court’s adjudicative authority to territory within King County’s geographic service area. The inclusion of Point Wells, which is outside King County’s geographic service area, without the involvement of Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway is void because it exceeded the court’s adjudicative authority.