Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf

not. While the Lewises point to the outdated court form as the reason for their

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9

noncompliance with the applicable rule and statute, it is clear in the record that the

Pierce County LINX 3 system permits individuals to upload their own filings. The

Lewises could have taken advantage of this option and filed a request that complied

with the rules. They did not do so.

We note that every division of the Court of Appeals has addressed whether a

trial de novo can proceed despite a party’s failure to comply with the signature

requirements of the newly amended SCCAR 7.1. Each division has answered no

based on our case law demanding strict compliance. And each case occurred during

the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Shepler v. Terry’s Truck Ctr., Inc., 25 Wn.

App. 2d 67, 522 P.3d 126 (2022) (filed trial de novo request in September 2020,

using an outdated, county-provided form that did not include space for the aggrieved

party’s signature (Division Three)); Butler v. Finneran, 22 Wn. App. 2d 763, 516

P.3d 395 (2022) (filed trial de novo request in August 2020, using Pierce County’s

LINX system and did not include aggrieved party’s signature (Division Two));

Hanson, 19 Wn. App. 2d at 463 (filed trial de novo request in October 2020 and the

aggrieved party failed to sign the trial de novo request (Division One)). These cases

are consistent with the principle that reliance on an outdated form, without reviewing

the applicable statute and court rule, does not excuse a party’s failure to strictly

comply with the SCCARs and arbitration statute. See, e.g., RPC 1.1; see also