Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 47087-1,47087-1 |
| Citation | 95 Wn.2d 661,637 P.2d 235 |
| Parties | George WHITAKER, et al., Respondents, v. SPIEGEL, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
The Court having considered the appellant's motion for reconsideration herein, and desiring to revise and clarify the opinion of the Court in certain respects, it is hereby ordered that the opinion of the Court in the above cause, as the same appears at 95 Wash.2d 408, 623 P.2d 1147, be changed as follows:
1. The sentence appearing in lines 13 through 16 on page 414, 623 P.2d 1151, is changed to read:
Rather, the legislature has directed that, in an action brought in Washington on an allegedly usurious transaction, Washington's usury law will apply if the debtor was a resident of Washington at the time the loan was made, even if the loan was made outside the state.
2. The following language is inserted immediately before the paragraph which begins in the third line from the bottom of page 423, 623 P.2d 1156:
The last question we must decide is whether our decision should have a retroactive effect. In light of the impact on presently existing agreements entered into over many years in reliance on the usury statute, RCW 19.52, as construed in Hafer v. Spaeth, 22 Wash.2d 378, 156 P.2d 408 (1945), we think justice requires that this decision be applied prospectively only, except for a limited retroactive application to the parties in this case.
Courts may give a party the benefit of its own lawsuit, where that party has prevailed in its contention that the old law should be overruled. Cascade Security Bank v. Butler, 88 Wash.2d 777, 784, 567 P.2d 631 (1977). However, "(a)ppellate courts possess the power to give their decisions prospective effect, i.e., not to apply the decision to the parties in the overruling case." Cascade Security Bank, at 785, 567 P.2d 631. If a party has justifiably relied on the overruled case, we must decide whether a retroactive application of the overruling decision would defeat these reliance interests. Geise v. Lee, 10 Wash.App. 728, 732-33, 519 P.2d 1005 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, 84 Wash.2d 866, 529 P.2d 1054 (1975).
Over the years since the Hafer decision, there have been untold numbers of transactions in reliance on that decision. Indeed, the Attorney General has recently published an opinion advising that the usury statute did not apply to
installment sales of real property and relying on Hafer. Attorney General Opinion, May 20, 1980. It would be unfair now to give our decision a general retroactive effect and expose well meaning vendors to the consequences of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.
...a means to avoid hardship caused by the announcement of a new rule of law, but rarely applied it. See, e.g., Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 661, 678, 637 P.2d 235 (1981) (holding in the decision overruling previous interpretation of usury statute that the new rule applied retroactive......
-
American Network, Inc. v. Washington Utilities and Transp. Com'n
...a state regulation is challenged as interfering with interstate commerce. In Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 661, 623 P.2d 1147, 637 P.2d 235, appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 958, 102 S.Ct. 496, 70 L.Ed.2d 374 (1981), this court concluded that (1) it will only balance local and national in......
-
Evison v. Vossler
...Evison dismissed GlaxoSmithKline. 8. Some internal citations omitted. 9. Footnote omitted. 10. Valley's reliance on Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 95 Wn.2d 661, 623 P.2d 1147, 637 P.2d 235 (1981), is misplaced. In Whitaker, the court held that its new rule should have selectively prospective ap......
-
Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Cos.
...a different result in doing so.Plaintiff relies on Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 408, 623 P.2d 1147, 1150, as amended 95 Wash.2d 661, 637 P.2d 235 (1981), to argue that Washington law must be applied to Plaintiff's attachment statute claim because doing so would contravene a fundame......
-
State Consumer Protection Laws
...531, 534 (Wash. 1986). 3566. See, e.g., Van Noy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 16 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2001); Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 637 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1981); Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 259 P.3d 129, 138-39 (Wash. 2011) (remanding for consideration of Washington plaintiffs’ CPA cl......
-
Table of Cases
...Ct. App. 1990), 949 Wham-O, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 286 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (N.D. Cal. 2003), 1319 Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 637 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1981), 1166 Whitaker v. Thompson, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002), 87 White v. R.M. Packer Co., 635 F.3d 571 (1st Cir. 2011), 919 Whittake......
-
Washington
...P.3d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018); Deegan v. Windermere Real Est./Ctr.-Isle, 391 P.3d 582 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017); Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 637 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1981); see also Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 259 P.3d 129, 138-39 (Wash. 2011) (remanding for consideration of Washington plaintif......
-
§24.3 - Usury
...be to make an otherwise usurious transaction nonusurious, at least when the borrower resides in Washington. Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 95 Wn.2d 661, 637 P.2d 235 (1981); O'Brien v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 93 Wn.2d 51, 605 P.2d 779 (1980). (v) In-state collateral/out-of-state borrower a......