Court Opinion

ID: 9571723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:38.608996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:51.361976
License: Public Domain

Dimmick, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I respectfully disagree with the majority's finding of inexcusable neglect for failure to initially name the proper parties in pleadings seeking review of the King County Council's Bristol View Two decision. No doubt a duty existed to verify the property owners involved in this dispute. It is equally certain that at the dispute's commencement, Burn-stead was the property owner of record and was held out as such during the proceedings. Reliance on information pro*79vided over several years of public proceedings is understandable. Nothing occurred to indicate that ownership had changed until the parties were notified the day before hearing on the application for review that the Mowats would appear as record owners. While it may be neglect to fail to confirm the property owner from the public record, it was excusable under these facts. By holding otherwise, the majority suggests that any neglect is inexcusable.
I nevertheless concur in the majority result because the respondent failed to exhaust the administrative remedies prescribed by King County ordinance. I write separately to indicate my understanding that the majority position does not prohibit an appeal from the Council's action on a hearing examiner's recommendation where the appealing party was satisfied with the examiner's recommendation. Failure to file the required appeal only precludes review when, as here, the parties raise issues for which there is an adequate administrative remedy. See Retail Store Employees Local 1001 v. Washington Surveying & Rating Bur., 87 Wn.2d 887, 909, 558 P.2d 215 (1976). If a party agrees with an examiner's recommendation, no issues are raised; nothing exists to require an administrative remedy. Since the party was not aggrieved, exhaustion will not apply to preclude review.