Court Opinion

ID: 9587628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:24:34.384413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:56.867160
License: Public Domain

Andersen, C.J.
(dissenting) — Mr. Vail lost his bid for attorneys’ fees on the only legal theory he raised at the time of trial. That should have ended the matter once and for all.
I would hold that the trial court was without authority to devise a different basis for awarding this litigant the same remedy, based on the same facts, that was reversed on appeal.
CR 11 sanctions were not sought or mentioned at the time of trial by Mr. Vail, his counsel or the trial court. The trial court in this case originally awarded $25,000 in attorneys’ fees to Mr. Vail’s counsel. The fees were awarded pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, the frivolous action statute. We reversed that award, holding that under the facts of this case the frivolous action statute did not provide a basis for an award *203of attorneys’ fees. Biggs v. Vail, 119 Wn.2d 129, 830 P.2d 350 (1992) (Biggs I).
Our opinion in Biggs I, which I authored for the court, notes that we did not condone Mr. Biggs’ conduct and further notes that remedial measures could have been considered by the trial court as possibly appropriate to prevent or correct such conduct. Biggs I, 119 Wn.2d at 137. After the mandate was issued in Biggs I, Mr. Vail incorrectly argued to the trial court that we had "remanded [the case] back for a finding consistent with [our] opinion asking for sanctions under CR 11.” Report of Proceedings, at 8-9. This was error; we did not remand the case at all. We affirmed the judgment on the contract claim and reversed the award of attorneys’ fees.
It was not until after the mandate was issued by this court that Mr. Vail moved for CR 11 sanctions; asking not for sanctions generally but rather for attorneys’ fees, based on the same facts that had been the basis of his frivolous action claim. The trial court again awarded $25,000 in attorneys’ fees. This flies directly in the face of this court’s clear mandate and, to my view, is nothing more than a losing party on appeal and the trial court which had been reversed devising a new basis to reinstitute a reversed ruling. I do not countenance such conduct.
I agree with the majority opinion that a trial court may, in some circumstances, impose sanctions under CR 11 even after a judgment has been entered. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359, 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990), holding the trial court had jurisdiction to impose sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (Rule 11) after the action was voluntarily dismissed, where defendant had filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions prior to dismissal. Here, however, the motion for sanctions in issue was not even brought until nearly 5 years after the offending pleading was filed.4
The majority acknowledges that a motion for sanctions made some A1! 2 years after trial normally would be impermissible. Majority opinion, at 198. The majority then holds *204that without "prompt” notice, CR 11 sanctions are unwarranted. Majority, at 198. With this, I agree.
I cannot agree with the remainder of the majority opinion. The majority holds that the "general” notice in this case that attorneys’ fees would be sought under the frivolous action statute was sufficient notice that the trial court would later be asked to impose CR 11 sanctions. Unlike the frivolous action statute, CR 11 is not a fee-shifting rule. Instead, it permits a wide range of sanctions. Furthermore, the rule requires proof of elements that are not required in order to prevail under the frivolous action statute.
I would hold that the notice required under CR 11 is notice that CR 11 sanctions, not a request for attorneys’ fees based on some other rule or statute, are going to be sought. Further, I would hold that such notice must be given within a reasonable time of the discovery of the allegedly sanction-able conduct. Here Mr. Biggs had notice that attorneys’ fees would be sought under the frivolous action statute early in the proceeding. He was given no notice that sanctions would be requested under CR 11 until many years after the pleading in question was signed. That is not fair by any standard and I would disallow it.
While the majority takes pains to emphasize that CR 11 is not a fee-shifting statute, it equates the remedy imposed under the rule with that available under RCW 4.84.185. In essence, the majority allows the trial court and Mr. Vail to circumvent the holding in Biggs I, and to get around RCW 4.84.185, by saying that attorneys’ fees may be awarded based on a party’s filing of a frivolous claim. This is precisely what we said was not allowed in Biggs I.
Because I would reverse the trial court’s latest ruling on attorneys’ fees, I dissent from the majority opinion.
Brachtenbach and Smith, JJ., concur with Andersen, C.J.

Although not clearly reflected in the record we have before us, the offensive pleading presumably was the amended complaint, a document which was signed, not by Mr. Biggs, but by his attorney, on March 5, 1988.