Court Opinion

ID: 9533884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:35:17.895614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:12.282235
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(dissenting) — I concur except for that portion of the opinion which denies the National Bank of Washington a trial on the merits of the amount due Columbia Wood Products, Inc. under its lien. I believe a review of the history of the case and the applicable law demands such a remand.
In the original proceedings, the court determined the Bank’s lien was prior to Columbia’s. At that point, the Bank had no reason to challenge the amount of Columbia’s lien claim as its claim was inferior to that of the Bank.
The judgment of the trial court foreclosing and establishing the amount of Columbia’s lien is not supported by findings of fact in either the initial trial or proceedings on remittitur. This is conceded by Columbia. The trial court could not enter findings of fact regarding Columbia’s lien claim because its decision in the initial hearing regarding priorities was made as a matter of law and there was, therefore, no necessity for the Bank to produce testimony *445controverting Columbia’s lien claim. When we reversed the trial court’s decision on appeal, it still left the question of the amount of the lien, as it affected the Bank, unlitigated.
Columbia argues that the amount of its claim was determined by a 1971 judgment against Brama Construction. The Bank could not be bound as to that judgment because the Bank was not Columbia’s adversary at that point and had no right to challenge that judgment. Snyder v. Marken, 116 Wash. 270, 199 P. 302, 22 A.L.R. 1272 (1921); In re Estate of Gallinger, 31 Wn.2d 823, 199 P.2d 575 (1948).
The majority’s conclusion that the amount of Columbia’s claim should not be litigated because trials must come to a conclusion and cannot be tried piecemeal is without authority and under the special circumstances of this case, is not persuasive. Where a case has been terminated by a ruling of the trial court on an issue as a matter of law, prior to a full trial on the merits, and the ruling is reversed on appeal, we have uniformly on remand, provided for a trial on the merits. “It would be unjust to hold that the defendant is now foreclosed from presenting such proof, thus penalizing him for having secured a favorable ruling from the trial court. With the case in this posture, a remand is necessary in order to do justice to both parties.” Fuller v. Rosinski, 79 Wn.2d 719, 724, 488 P.2d 1061 (1971).
We should remand for a trial on the merits the question of the amount due Columbia under its lien.
Finley, J., concurs with Utter, J.