Spokane & Eastern Lawyer v. Board of Trustees of Spokane County Law Library, No. 57200-8-I (Wash. App. 10/16/2006)
| Decision Date | 16 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 57200-8-I,57200-8-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SPOKANE & EASTERN LAWYER, a Washington non-profit corporation; and, SPOKANE RESEARCH & DEFENSE FUND, a Washington non-profit corporation, Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY LAW LIBRARY; SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER; and DIAMOND PLAZA LLC, Respondents. |
Appeal from Spokane Superior Court. Docket No: 03-2-07100-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 08/27/2004. Judge signing: Honorable Allen C Nielson.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Stephen Kerr Eugster, Eugster Law Office PSC, 423 W 1st Ave Ste 100, Spokane, WA, 99201-3700.
Counsel for Defendant(s), James P. Emacio, Attorney at Law, Cnty Pros Offc Civil Div, 1115 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA, 99260-2051.
Counsel for Respondent(s), James P. Emacio, Attorney at Law, Cnty Pros Offc Civil Div, 1115 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA, 99260-2051.
Appellants, non-profit Washington corporations, assert that the law requires that the Spokane County Law Library be located in the Spokane County Courthouse and that its presence in Spokane's privately owned Paulsen Building is, therefore, prohibited. Appellants sought relief in the Spokane County Superior Court, in the form of requests for writs of mandamus and declaratory judgment.1 Respondents, the Board of Trustees of the Spokane County Law Library ("Trustees"), the Board of Spokane County Commissioners ("Commissioners"), and the Spokane County Treasurer ("Treasurer") moved for and were granted summary judgment dismissal of all of Appellants' claims.
Finding no error in the judgment, we affirm.
In 1919, the Washington Legislature required counties with a population of 300,000 or more to have a county law library. Spokane County subsequently acquired the Paulsen Law Library, which had previously been a private library, and renamed it the Spokane County Law Library. The law library has remained in the privately-owned Paulsen Building since that time.
The owners of the Paulsen Building, which is situated several blocks away from the Spokane County Courthouse, do not charge Spokane County or the Trustees rent for the space occupied by the law library, which occupies its room on a month-to-month tenancy.
In 2002, the Trustees requested that the law librarian ask the Spokane County Facilities Director if there was space available on the county campus for the law library. The law librarian was told, and reported to the Trustees, that there was no space on the county campus for the law library. The Trustees did not meet with the Commissioners, nor did the Trustees discuss relocating the law library with the Commissioners.
On October 27, 2003, Appellants filed a petition in which they requested:
(1) a writ of mandamus requiring the Trustees to cease using money from court filing fees for the library in the Paulsen Building, to cease the operation of the law library in the Paulsen Building, to demand that the Commissioners provide a room for the law library in the courthouse, and to set a schedule for moving the library to the courthouse; (2) a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioners to immediately provide a room in the courthouse for the law library; and (3) a writ of mandamus directing the Treasurer to stop paying for law library operations with filing fee receipts until the law library was relocated to the Spokane County Courthouse.
With leave from the trial court, appellants amended their petition to add a prayer for declaratory relief and two new causes of action. The first alleged that the Trustees violated article VIII, sections 5 and 7 of the Washington Constitution by not soliciting bids for "free use of a location" for the law library.2 The second alleged that the Commissioners and Trustees violated the public works bidding statutes by not publicly bidding the "leasing" of space for the law library.
On April 21, 2004, appellants filed a motion for summary judgment in Spokane County Superior Court. On June 22, 2004, respondents filed a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissal of appellants' claims.
After oral argument on July 21, 2004, the trial court granted respondents' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of appellants' claims.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court and viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Overton v. Consol. Ins. Co., 145 Wn.2d 417, 429, 38 P.3d 322, 327 (2002). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c).
A statute should be read as a whole, and the legislative intent derived from the whole. Finley v. Finley, 43 Wn.2d 755, 264 P.2d 246 (1953). If the language is clear and the meaning plain, a statute needs no construction; a court will neither read into it things that are not there nor amend it by construction. King County v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.2d 988, 991, 425 P.2d 887 (1967). A court should not add language to a clear statute even if it believes the legislature intended something else but failed to adequately express it. State v. Chester, 133 Wn.2d 15, 21, 940 P.2d 1374 (1997).
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Burg v. Seattle, 32 Wn. App. 286, 290, 647 P.2d 517 (1982). An applicant for mandamus must satisfy three elements before a writ will issue: Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wn. App. 383, 402, 76 P.3d 741 (2003). In the instant dispute appellants fail to demonstrate the existence of a clear duty on the part of any respondents. Adams v. City of Seattle, 31 Wn.2d 147, 151, 195 P.2d 634 (1948).
We conclude that none of the statutes relied upon by appellants, taken together or individually, evince the legislature's intent to impose a duty on the Trustees to operate the law library in the courthouse.
"Each county with a population of eight thousand or more shall have a county law library, which shall be governed and maintained as hereinafter provided." RCW 27.24.010. RCW 27.24.020 provides for a Board of Trustees having various members depending on the size of the county. RCW 27.24.030 sets forth the powers of the Board of Trustees.3
RCW 27.24.062 addresses regional law libraries:
Two or more counties each with a population of from eight thousand to less than one hundred twenty-five thousand may, by agreement of the respective law library boards of trustees, create a regional law library and establish and maintain one principal law library at such location as the regional board of trustees may determine will best suit the needs of the users: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That there shall be at all times a law library in such size as the board of trustees may determine necessary to be located at the courthouse where each superior court is located.
(Emphasis added.)
RCW 27.24.062 is inapplicable to the Trustees. The statute applies to regional law libraries for counties with populations between 8,000 and 125,000. Spokane County's population is well in excess of 125,000. Further, the statute's proviso for law libraries in superior courts for counties with regional law libraries does not apply to other sections of the chapter. See 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes & Statutory Construction, § 47.33 at 371 (6th ed. 2000) ().
The existence of the proviso in RCW 27.24.062 also undermines appellants' related arguments since it demonstrates that the legislature has a means to explicitly create a legal duty to house a law library in a county courthouse, should it desire to do so. Such language is absent in the statutes applicable to the Trustees.
RCW 27.24.066 addresses the Trustees' ability to demand that the Commissioners provide a "room" for the law library:
The county legislative authority of each county that is required to maintain a county law library shall upon demand by the board of law library trustees, provide a room suitable for the law library, with adequate heat, light, and janitor service.
Appellants argue that this section creates a clear duty on the part of the Trustees to demand a room for the law library from the Commissioners. However, in this section, the verb "shall" relates to the subject "county legislative authority". The plain purpose of this section is to compel action on the part of the county legislative authority subsequent to a demand by the board of law library trustees. There is no duty-creating language in this section that would be binding on the Trustees. No statutory duty required of the Trustees warrants the relief sought by appellants.
Similarly, none of the statutes cited to us by appellants, taken together or individually, evince the legislature's intent to impose a duty on the Commissioners to provide a room for the law library in the courthouse absent a request from the Trustees.
The duty for the Commissioners to provide a room suitable for the law library, set forth in RCW 27.24.066, is entirely conditioned upon a demand by the Trustees. No such demand was made herein.
Further, RCW 27.24.066 specifies only that the room be "suitable for the law library, with adequate heat, light, and janitor service." Unlike the proviso in RCW 27.24.062, applicable to counties with regional law libraries, RCW 27.24.066 does not require the room to be "located at the courthouse."
RCW 36.32.120 (1) and (6) outline the Commissioners' authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial