Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)

Citation: Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)
Parent Document: Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-03-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931207/housing-authority-v-newbigging/ ↗

Full Text

669 chars

While no case law is directly on point, our analysis of CR 60(b) and the applicable case law lead us to believe that a trial court may award terms to either a moving or opposing party when considering a motion to set aside a default judgment. The rule is equitable in nature and gives the trial court liberal discretion to “ ‘preserve substantial rights and do justice between the parties.’ ” Pamelin, 95 Wn.2d at 404 (quoting Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wn.2d 539, 543, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978)). Consequently, we can envision equitable circumstances that may support granting terms to the moving party such as fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the opposing party.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text