Court Filings

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from a federal district court about whether RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) — the charity care notice provision — applies to a debt collection agency collecting hospital debt. The court held yes: collection agencies collecting hospital debt must provide notice of charity care under the plain language and policy of the charity care act, and an assignee of hospital debt takes on notice obligations tied to that debt. The court further explained that failure to provide notice can support a non-per-se Consumer Protection Act claim based on violation of the act’s public-policy goals.

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal case about whether a home equity line of credit (HELOC) is a negotiable instrument and whether an alleged beneficiary can be the “holder” of such a HELOC for purposes of initiating a nonjudicial trustee’s sale under the deed of trust act (DTA). The majority held that HELOCs of this revolving type are nonnegotiable and that the DTA’s requirement that the beneficiary be the “holder” refers to the holder of a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, so RRA could not truthfully declare it was the holder and thus could not proceed nonjudicially. The court noted judicial remedies remain available.

The Washington Supreme Court held that child welfare records in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) are generally privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a), but an exception in that statute permits disclosure when the records are needed in a judicial proceeding directly concerned with administration of the foster care program. The court also held RCW 13.50.100 does not bar disclosure because plaintiffs are entitled to records that “pertain” to them. The trial courts’ orders compelling production of redacted records under protective orders were affirmed; fee requests were denied.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the King County Assessor in a class action brought by the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA). WHA sought property tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1), arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” that reduced hotel property values. The court held that “natural disaster” in the statute refers to a physically destructive event originating in the earth, atmosphere, or planet (e.g., flood, earthquake, eruption), and does not encompass a pandemic or disease-related economic losses. Because WHA’s properties suffered no physical damage, relief was unavailable.