Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)

Citation: Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)
Parent Document: Housing Authority v. Newbigging, 105 Wash. App. 178 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-03-08
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931207/housing-authority-v-newbigging/ ↗

Full Text

986 chars

*186“When deciding a motion to vacate a default judgment, the court must consider two primary and two secondary factors that must be shown by the moving party.” Norton, 99 Wn. App. at 123 (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352, 438 P.2d 581 (1968)). The two primary factors are (1) “the existence of substantial evidence to support at least a prima facie defense” to the opposing party’s claim; and (2) the “failure to timely appear was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” Norton, 99 Wn. App. at 123. The secondary factors are (3) the party seeking relief acted with diligence after receiving notice of the default judgment; and (4) the effect on the opposing party would not be prejudicial if the judgment were vacated. Id. at 123-24. “These factors are interdependent; thus, the requisite proof that needs to be shown on any one factor depends on the degree of proof made on each of the other factors.” Id. at 124 (citing White, 73 Wn.2d at 352-53).

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text