Court Opinion

ID: 9565063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:14:10.921129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:22.020877
License: Public Domain

Brachtenbach, J.
(dissenting) — The majority holds that RCW 35.31.010 by itself imposes a duty of claim filing and can be and is supplemented by an ordinance rather than a charter provision.
This holding is contrary to a plain reading of the statute and directly contrary to three opinions of this court, the first of which has been unchallenged for 76 years.
Looking first at the statute, RCW 35.31.010, it is clearly stated that in the case of a claim against a charter city, the claim must be filed in compliance with valid charter provisions thereof. Note that the claim is not to comply with an ordinance, but must comply with provisions of the charter.
The statute goes on to require specific information in addition to "the valid requirements of the city charter relating thereto". (Italics mine.)
Here Seattle has no charter requirements applicable to these claims. Hall v. Niemer, 97 Wn.2d 574, 581, 649 P.2d 98 (1982).
The majority reads the statute to say that when the statute refers to charter provisions it really means charter or an ordinance. That is a reading precluded by our prior, viable holdings specifically on point.
In Wolpers v. Spokane, 66 Wash. 633, 635, 120 P. 113 (1912), the court was interpreting Laws of 1909, ch. 83, § 1 which is the predecessor of RCW 35.31.010 and identical for this purpose. The court held that the statute can only be invoked by reference to the charter. Since the specific filing requirement was not in the charter no such requirement existed, i.e., if it is not in the charter, it is not required. The same is true here; it is not in the charter and the ordinance is not valid.
The court said:
*59The first section of the act of 1909 makes it manifest that the provisions of that law, as relating to cities of the first class, have no independent force. They can only be invoked by reference to the city charter, and as applying to claims prescribed and filed "in compliance with valid charter provisions of such city." That law does not extend the requirement of notice, either as contained in any city charter or as contained in the law itself, to other persons or other torts than those contemplated by such city charter. If the charter does not require the presentation or filing of any notice of claim in a case such as here under consideration, then the law of 1909 requires none.
(Italics mine.) Wolpers, at 635.
Maggs v. Seattle, 86 Wash. 427, 428, 150 P. 612 (1915) is to the same effect: "Independent of some valid charter provision requiring the presentation and filing of a claim, this act of 1909 has no force. It merely adds a new requirement to those made by the charter." (Italics mine.)
Judge Ellis' concurrence in Haynes v. Seattle, 87 Wash. 375, 380, 151 P. 789 (1915) refers to the act now contained in RCW 35.31.010, stating "it can only be invoked by reference to the city charter". (Italics mine.)
To me the proposition is very simple. The statute approves claim filing requirements in the city charter, but only in the city charter. The cases are absolutely clear in holding that the statutory authorization extends only to provisions in the charter. It may be easier and less cumbersome to try to impose claim filing and delay of suit requirement by ordinance, but the only statute in point, and the cases, mandate that such requirements be in the charter.
The majority says that the statute "does not explicitly require that the claims filing provision be found in the charter itself." Majority, at 54. How the statute could be more clear escapes me. When the statute states that the filing must be in compliance with valid "charter provisions" and must contain information "in addition to the valid requirements of the city charter" it appears to me that the *60statute refers to requirements in the charter. (Italics mine.) Any other reading ignores the plain language of the statute. In fact the majority's holding renders the statute meaningless.
I would reverse the dismissals in Daggs and Stephens, and affirm Johnson.
Pearson, C.J., and Utter and Andersen, JJ., concur with Brachtenbach, J.