Opinion ID: 1129262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: affidavits of prejudice

Text: The final issue in this case concerns affidavits of prejudice. Affidavits of prejudice are the means by which litigants in this state can prevent a judge who they perceive to be biased from hearing their case. Affidavits of prejudice are governed by RCW 4.12.040 and 4.12.050, which provide in relevant part: No judge of a superior court of the state of Washington shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that said judge is prejudiced against any party or attorney, or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in such cause.... RCW 4.12.040. Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding in a superior court, may establish such prejudice by motion, supported by affidavit that the judge before whom the action is pending is prejudiced against such party or attorney, so that such party or attorney cannot, or believes that he cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge ... RCW 4.12.050. We have summarized the effect of these statutes as follows: Under these statutes and under our decisions a party litigant is entitled, as a matter of right, to a change of judges upon the timely filing of a motion and affidavit of prejudice against a judge about to hear his cause or any substantial portion thereof on the merits. Such a motion and affidavit seasonably filed presents no question of fact or discretion. Prejudice is deemed to be established by the affidavit and the judge to whom it is directed is divested of authority to proceed further into the merits of the action. State v. Dixon, 74 Wn.2d 700, 702, 446 P.2d 329 (1968). However, the right to file affidavits of prejudice is not unlimited: [N]o party or attorney shall be permitted to make more than one such application in any action or proceeding under this section and RCW 4.12.040. RCW 4.12.050. In this case, Lorraine LaMon filed an affidavit of prejudice against Judge Kirkwood and Edward LaMon filed an affidavit of prejudice against Judge Schumacher. [7] The LaMons argue that because they are each parties, they each have independent rights to file affidavits of prejudice under RCW 4.12.050. [4, 5] Analysis of this issue revolves around the interpretation of party in RCW 4.12.050. Are co-plaintiffs each parties to an action, or instead, do they together constitute one party? This is apparently an issue of first impression in this state. The term party is not defined in RCW 4.12.050. However, one of the definitions of party in Black's Law Dictionary reads as follows: Party is a technical word having a precise meaning in legal parlance; it refers to those by or against whom a legal suit is brought, whether in law or in equity, the party plaintiff or defendant, whether composed of one or more individuals and whether natural or legal persons; all others who may be affected by the suit, indirectly or consequently, are persons interested but not parties. (Italics ours.) Black's Law Dictionary 1010 (5th ed. 1979). [8] Under this definition, the LaMons together would constitute a single party. This same result has been reached by the Oregon Supreme Court when interpreting a statute similar to ours. The Oregon statute provided that no party or attorney shall be permitted to make more than two applications in any action or proceeding under this act. U'Ren v. Bagley, 118 Or. 77, 85, 245 P. 1074, 46 A.L.R. 1173 (1926) (quoting section 45-3, Oregon Laws). The Oregon Supreme Court interpreted the term party in this statute in the following manner: Party means either plaintiff or defendant, and includes all persons belonging to the particular class: 40 Cyc[lopedia of Law and Procedure] 146 [(1912)]. Party is used in a collective sense and if there be a plurality of plaintiffs, they are all only one party litigant. U'Ren, at 85. See also 46 Am.Jur.2d Judges § 212 (1969). We find this holding to be persuasive. If we were to hold that each plaintiff and each defendant were entitled to file an affidavit of prejudice, then scores of judges could be disqualified in a single case. The Legislature could not have intended that result. Statutes must be interpreted so as to avoid absurd results. General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 104 Wn.2d 460, 471, 706 P.2d 625 (1985). Therefore, we hold that the language of RCW 4.12.050 limits co-plaintiffs or co-defendants to the filing of a single affidavit. The LaMons were only entitled to file a single affidavit of prejudice. [9] The trial court's decision is affirmed. CALLOW, C.J., and BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, ANDERSEN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.