Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank of Tampa, Fla., 47231-9

Citation649 P.2d 827,96 Wn.2d 692
Decision Date04 January 1982
Docket NumberNo. 47231-9,47231-9
PartiesLaurence D. BARR, as Personal Representative, Appellant, v. INTERBAY CITIZENS BANK OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

It is hereby ordered that the opinion in the above cause, as the same appears at 96 Wash.2d 409, 635 P.2d 441, be changed as follows:

1. The sentence beginning with the words "We need not" on page 412, line 2, 635 P.2d 441, line 12, is deleted.

2. The sentence "We concur in this view." on page 412, line 11, 635 P.2d 441, line 25, is deleted, and the following language is inserted in lieu thereof: We concur in this view that defendant waived any question of insufficiency of process or service of process. CR 12(b)(4), (5).

Nevertheless, the bank argues this is a jurisdictional question which can be raised at any time and that since plaintiff did not comply with the statute the judgment of the trial court is void.

RCW 4.28.185(4) reads:

Personal service outside the state shall be valid only when an affidavit is made and filed to the effect that service cannot be made within the state.

In fact, affidavits were submitted on behalf of defendant which stated defendant was not licensed to do business in Washington, had no officers, agents or employees in Washington, transacts no business in Washington of any sort and that all of its employees are citizens of Florida. We have held that "substantial and not strict compliance is sufficient where a proper affidavit is filed, although late, where it appears that no injury was done the defendant as a result of the late filing." Golden Gate Hop Ranch, Inc. v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 66 Wash.2d 469, 472, 403 P.2d 351 (1965); Whitney v. Knowlton, 33 Wash. 319, 74 P. 469 (1903). No injury is claimed here nor is there a showing the long-arm statute was being used to burden or harass defendant.

The logical conclusion from the language in the affidavits is that there were no authorized personnel in Washington for plaintiff to serve. The affidavits are thus, in the language of the statute, "to the effect that service cannot be made within the state." As they were filed before judgment, the affidavits were timely. Schel v. Tri-State Irrigation, 22 Wash.App. 788, 591 P.2d 1222 (1979). There is no requirement in the statute that the affidavits must be filed by plaintiff. There has been substantial compliance with RCW 4.28.185(4).

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Washington
    • 31 Octubre 1991
    ...court) that, as a matter of substantive law, Washington generally prohibits the award of punitive damages; Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank, 96 Wash.2d 692, 699-700, 649 P.2d 827 (1981). But the parties disagree as to whether the phrase "law of the State" is to be interpreted as including onl......
  • Downing v. Losvar
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 14 Abril 2022
    ...Washington State does not afford punitive damages. Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank of Tampa, Fla. , 96 Wash.2d 692, 697, 635 P.2d 441, 649 P.2d 827 (1981).¶95 Washington possesses an interest in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state......
  • Jongeward v. BNSF Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 2012
    ...of public policy unless explicitly authorized by statute. Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank of Tampa, Fla., 96 Wash.2d 692, 635 P.2d 441, 649 P.2d 827 (1982); see also Spokane Truck & Dray Co. v. Hoefer, 2 Wash. 45, 25 P. 1072 (1891). The law of other states is simply not as persuasive as the ......
  • Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 6 Enero 1994
    ...v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wash.2d 577, 580, 555 P.2d 997 (1976); Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank, 96 Wash.2d 692, 697, 635 P.2d 441, 649 P.2d 827 (1981). Southwell v. Widing Transp., Inc., 101 Wash.2d 200, 204, 676 P.2d 477 (1984). See generally Trautman, Evolution in Washington Choice of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT