Opinion ID: 1194280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Equitable defense of laches.

Text: Respondents contend that if there was any cause of action it arose in 1968, and that the opportunity to discover any alleged underpayment of employee contributions existed from that time. Therefore, they assert the equitable defense of laches. Laches is an equitable principle that in a general sense relates to neglect for an unreasonable length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 147, 437 P.2d 908 (1968); In re Estate of Tuott, 25 Wn. App. 259, 261, 606 P.2d 706 (1980). [6] We find it unnecessary to determine whether the elements of laches can be satisfied in the case before us. Since laches is an equitable defense, it cannot successfully be urged by those who withhold information which would have prompted action at an earlier time. Shew v. Coon Bay Loafers, Inc., 76 Wn.2d 40, 51, 455 P.2d 359 (1969); In re Estate of Novolich, 7 Wn. App. 495, 502, 500 P.2d 1297 (1972). This principle is expressed by the old equity maxims: He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. It appears to us that the respondents come before the court with unclean hands. In the present case, the respondents are responsible for the breach of the collective bargaining agreement and have withheld information which would have prompted action at an earlier date. The breach was not discovered until the petitioners conducted an audit of the respondent employers and found the respondents' failure to contribute to the trust funds for part-time employees, as required by the contract. The Health and Welfare Trust involves 730 participating employers and some 17,600 employees while the Pension Trust involves 920 participating employers and 21,700 employees. With such vast numbers of employers to watch over, the petitioners could not tell if any employer was paying and reporting accurately without an audit. By withholding information of their reporting practices, the respondents effectively hid the breach from the petitioners until such time as an audit could be performed. To permit the respondents to now assert a laches defense to this action would be to reward them for their inequitable conduct. This we cannot permit. For all of the above reasons, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the petitioners. The only remaining issue to be determined upon retrial shall be the amount of damages to be awarded. Reversed and remanded with instructions. BRACHTENBACH, C.J., and ROSELLINI, STAFFORD, UTTER, DOLLIVER, HICKS, DORE, and DIMMICK, JJ., concur.