Opinion ID: 2615021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Statutory Malfeasance

Text: The City states that it has not abandoned the issue of statutory malfeasance as concluded by the Court of Appeals. Yet it has not formally appealed that issue to this court. [75] The City, contrary to the position of Respondent and the Court of Appeals, has always disputed the conclusion that the malfeasance portion of the forfeiture statute is not applicable in this case. The Court of Appeals stated that the City had not appealed the trial court's ruling that the statute did not apply to Respondent. However, it is apparent from the record that the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent only on the issue of the inapplicability of the felony portion of the forfeiture statute. [76] Judge Spencer's letter rulings show that after he made his initial ruling on the forfeiture statute, he considered the City's motion for summary judgment on the malfeasance portion of that same statute. He stated: The defendant has moved for summary judgment alleging malfeasance in office, requiring automatic forfeiture under RCW 9.92.120.... .... Summary judgment is inappropriate if genuine issues of material fact are in dispute. The issue of whether or not malfeasance in office occurred as a result of the plaintiff's conviction is a matter which must be resolved at trial. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby denied.[ [77] ] The trial court ruled that the malfeasance issue should be decided by a jury, and did not foreclose the issue, as Respondent and the Court of Appeals conclude. The City made this argument in its response brief [78] to the Court of Appeals, but the court simply dismissed the issue by application of the law of the case rule. Petitioner City has not formally raised the issue before this court. [4, 5] The trial court was in error in its decision on the issue. The forfeiture statute mandates forfeiture of public office if the public officer is convicted of any felony or malfeasance in office. [79] Malfeasance generally refers to the commission of an unlawful act by a public official. [80] Respondent committed an unlawful act and was found guilty in federal court. [81] That same conduct constituted a gross misdemeanor under state law and would have subjected him to liability in Washington if the State had chosen to prosecute. [82]