Opinion ID: 1405659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Premature Filing

Text: An additional, and equally compelling, reason for dismissal of Quick-Ruben's private quo warranto action is that it was prematurely filed in December 1996 before the term of office in which Quick-Ruben was interested commenced. Quick-Ruben was advised of this problem by opposing counsel and given the opportunity to dismiss the action, refile it after Verharen's term commenced, and serve process on opposing counsel. He declined. In order to sustain a private quo warranto action he had to plead and prove a present special interest in the public office in question. In Dore, we held Seattle's mayor-elect had no right to question the title of the interim mayor to that office before the mayor-elect's term began, holding: That can only be done by the prosecuting attorney or by some one who asserts an interest in the particular term now enjoyed by [the interim mayor]. Dore, 167 Wash. at 659, 9 P.2d 1087. Under Quick-Ruben's own theory, his alleged special interest in the office did not accrue until the commencement of the term for which he ran as a candidate. Accord State ex rel. Tennent v. Tollefson, 4 Wash.2d 194, 198, 103 P.2d 36 (1940) (recognizing that a suit to try title to a publicly elected office of mayor would fail if pursued before the term in question commenced). Because he filed his private quo warranto action on December 23, 1996, prior to the January 13, 1997 commencement of the judicial position's term, he had no present special interest to assert when the action was filed and the trial court properly dismissed Quick-Ruben's action. [9] In light of our disposition of the foregoing issues, we do not reach the issue of whether residency in a county is a qualification for the office of superior court judge. While we note (1) the record suggests Verharen was indeed a resident of Pierce County, [10] and (2) such residency may not even be required for a superior court judicial candidate, [11] we make no ruling on these issues because they were not decided by the trial court and are not ripe for review. Department of Ecology v. Acquavella, 131 Wash.2d 746, 759-60, 935 P.2d 595 (1997) (where the trial court made no finding whether an irrigation district had forfeited a portion of its water rights, that issue was not ripe for review).