Camp Finance, LLC v. Brazington

• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Sweeney
• Citation: Camp Finance, LLC v. Brazington, 135 P.3d 946, 133 Wn. App. 156 (Wash. App. 2006)
• Decision Date: 25 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 24460-1-III.
• Parties: CAMP FINANCE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Appellant, v. Hersel and Sharon M. BRAZINGTON, husband and wife; Stanley Brazington, Respondents.

135 P.3d 946

133 Wn. App. 156

CAMP FINANCE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Appellant, v. Hersel and Sharon M. BRAZINGTON, husband and wife; Stanley Brazington, Respondents.

No. 24460-1-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

May 25, 2006.

Robert Ray Rowley, Attorney at Law, Spokane, WA, for Appellant.

Francis J. Gebhardt, Feltman Gebhardt Greer Zeimantz PS, Spokane, WA, for Respondents.

SWEENEY, C.J.

¶ 1 Washington law requires that notice of a sheriff's sale be sent only to the judgment debtor; junior lienholders need not be notified. RCW 6.21.030(1); RCW 6.23.030(1). The judgment creditor here, Hersel and Sharon Brazington and Stanley Brazington, did not notify a junior lienholder (Camp Finance) of a sheriff's sale. Camp Finance challenged the statutory scheme as unconstitutional. But it did not properly plead that challenge. And since the applicable statutes do not require notice, we affirm the summary dismissal of Camp Finance's complaint.

FACTS

¶ 2 Thomas and Denise Stephens owned four parcels of property near Liberty Lake, Washington. The Stephenses had financial reversals that ultimately prompted them to declare bankruptcy. The law office of Huppin, Ewing, Anderson & Paul took a judgment against them in 1996 for $15,160.52. The Stephenses also owed money to Camp Finance. They gave Camp Finance a deed of trust in the Liberty Lake property in 1996 to secure that debt. The Stephenses declared bankruptcy in May 1997. The bankruptcy court discharged their debts in October 1997.

¶ 3 In May 2001 the Stephenses secured Camp Finance's debt with a lien on the Liberty Lake property.

¶ 4 The Brazingtons bought Huppin, Ewing's 1996 judgment against the Stephenses for $1,500 in September 2003. They then executed on the Liberty Lake property to satisfy that judgment.

¶ 5 The sheriff sold all four parcels of land on January 9, 2004. The Brazingtons submitted the highest bid—$30,416.45. They notified the Stephenses of the sale and of their right to redeem the property within one year. But they did not directly notify Camp Finance of the sale or its right to redeem. The sheriff did post notice of the sale and publish notice of the sale in a newspaper. The failure to notify Camp Finance of the sale prompts this suit.

¶ 6 Camp Finance first learned of the sheriff's sale on January 6, 2005. It faxed a copy of its voluntary lien to the Spokane County sheriff on Monday, January 10, 2005. It did not redeem the property before the one-year redemption period expired on January 9, 2005. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 30, 112. The sheriff issued a sheriff's deed to the Brazingtons on January 27, 2005. They recorded the deed.

¶ 7 Camp Finance filed a complaint on March 10, 2005, to quiet title in the property and for declaratory relief. It sought to set aside the sheriff's deed and the sale. The Brazingtons moved for summary judgment. Camp Finance then moved to amend its complaint "to add the State of Washington as a necessary party," and to add new causes challenging the constitutional validity of the notice statutes. The court apparently ignored Camp Finance's motion to amend. The court granted the Brazingtons' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Camp Finance's complaint.

DISCUSSION

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME

¶ 8 Camp Finance first contends that the notice of sheriff's sale statute, RCW 6.21.030(1), and the notice of redemption rights statute, RCW 6.23.030(1), are unconstitutional because neither provides for actual notice to subordinate creditors of a pending sheriff's sale nor do the statutes require notice to the subordinate creditor of redemption rights.

¶ 9 The Brazingtons deny that the statutes are unconstitutional. But they argue that the question is not properly before the court, in any event, because Camp Finance failed to serve the attorney general. And this is required when a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute. RCW 7.24.110.¹

¶ 10 The question presented is whether the attorney general must be served when a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute. This is a question of law so our review is de novo. Yousoufian v. Office of King County Executive, 152 Wash.2d 421, 436, 98 P.3d 463 (2004).

¶ 11 A plaintiff who seeks to have a statute declared unconstitutional must provide the attorney general with notice of the action. RCW 7.24.110. The attorney general is entitled to be heard. Id. This is because "[t]he state as a whole is interested in the validity of [our state statutes], and it is evident that the legislature desired to protect that interest when it provided for service of the proceedings upon the attorney general." Parr v. City of Seattle, 197 Wash. 53, 56, 84 P.2d 375 (1938). And so service upon the attorney general is mandatory; it is a prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction. Kendall v. Douglas, Grant, Lincoln & Okanogan Counties Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 6, 118 Wash.2d 1, 11-12, 820 P.2d 497 (1991); Leonard v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 479, 480-84, 503 P.2d 741 (1972); Parr, 197 Wash. at 56, 84 P.2d 375.

¶ 12 Camp Finance sued to quiet title in the four parcels of real property sold at the sheriff's sale and for a judicial declaration of its rights in the property. The Brazingtons moved for summary judgment based on their compliance with the applicable statutes. Camp Finance responded to the motion and only then challenged the constitutional validity of the statutes. Camp Finance also moved to amend its complaint to accommodate its constitutional challenges and to add the attorney general as a party. The court did not address Camp Finance's motion to amend. It granted the Brazingtons' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Camp Finance's complaint.

¶ 13 Camp Finance argues that this court has jurisdiction to address the constitutional issues. It argues that the jurisdictional notice requirements in RCW 7.24.110 (requiring notice to the attorney general) do not apply since it raised the constitutional issues in response to a motion for summary judgment, rather than in its complaint. Camp Finance also argues that this is an issue that is appropriate for appellate review in the first instance citing RAP 2.5(a)(3) ("manifest error affecting a constitutional right").

¶ 14 Significantly for our analysis here, Camp Finance assigns no error to the trial court's failure to address its motion to amend the complaint.

¶ 15 We reject Camp Finance's arguments for two reasons. First, its challenge to the constitutionality of these statutes is nowhere to be found in its complaint. And the complaint must provide both the court and an opposing party with notice of the general nature of a plaintiff's claims. Nw. Line Constructors Chapter of Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Snohomish County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 104 Wash.App. 842, 848-49, 17 P.3d 1251 (2001). It must identify the legal theories upon which the plaintiff seeks recovery. Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wash.App. 454, 469-70, 98 P.3d 827 (2004); Dewey v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 95 Wash.App. 18, 23-25, 974 P.2d 847 (1999). This is because an opposing party is entitled to fair notice of the claims he must defend against. Dewey, 95 Wash.App. at 23, 974 P.2d 847. Insufficient pleadings are, then, prejudicial. Elec. Contractors, 104 Wash.App. at 848-49, 17 P.3d 1251; Dewey, 95 Wash.App. at 23, 25, 974 P.2d 847.

¶ 16 And Camp Finance apparently recognized the problem, since it attempted to amend its complaint. A complaint must be properly amended under CR 15(a) to assert new legal theories. Kirby, 124 Wash.App. at 470, 98 P.3d 827; Dewey, 95 Wash.App. at 27, 974 P.2d 847. But a complaint generally cannot be amended through arguments in a response brief to a motion for summary judgment. Kirby, 124 Wash.App. at 472, 98 P.3d 827. Camp Finance cannot then raise new legal theories in response to the Brazingtons' motion for summary judgment without amending its complaint. Id.; Dewey, 95 Wash.App. at 26, 974 P.2d 847. And the disposition of Camp Finance's motion to amend is not before us.

¶ 17 Second, even if Camp Finance had properly pleaded the constitutional challenge, it was required to provide the attorney general with notice of the suit. RCW 7.24.110; Kendall, 118 Wash.2d at 11-12, 820 P.2d 497; Leonard, 81 Wash.2d at 481, 503 P.2d 741; Parr, 197 Wash. at 56, 84 P.2d 375. The trial court did not, then, have jurisdiction to address the issue, in any event. Kendall, 118 Wash.2d at 11-12, 820 P.2d 497; see Leonard, 81 Wash.2d at 480-84, 503 P.2d 741; Parr, 197 Wash. at 56, 84 P.2d 375. And we also lack jurisdiction for the same reasons. Parr, 197 Wash. at 56, 84 P.2d 375.

STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

¶ 18 Camp Finance next argues that it had the right under the statute to redeem the property as a "redemptioner." RCW 6.23.010(1)(b) (defining redemptioner). And pursuant to RCW 6.23.030(1), Camp Finance, as a "redemptioner," was entitled to notice of its right to redeem the property.

¶ 19 The Brazingtons respond that under the clear language of the statutes (RCW 6.21.030(1) and RCW 6.23.030(1)) they were not required to notify Camp Finance of the sheriff's sale or of its right to redeem the property. They argue that in fact RCW 6.23.030(1) requires notice to the judgment debtor of the expiration of the redemption period only if the property is subject to a homestead. Camp Finance is not the judgment debtor. And the property was not subject to a homestead.

¶ 20 Again, the question raised is one of law. Yousoufian, 152 Wash.2d at 436, 98 P.3d 463. We interpret a statute as written if it is clear on its face. Am. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Steen, 151 Wash.2d 512, 518, 91 P.3d 864 (2004); Parkland Light & Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Bd. of Health, 151 Wash.2d 428, 432, 90 P.3d 37 (2004). And significantly for our purposes here, "we will not add language to an unambiguous statute even if we believe the legislature intended something else but did not adequately express it." Steen, 151 Wash.2d...