WEEKLY ROUNDUP FOR THE WEEK OF October 6th
Washington Supreme Court:
Tribal sovereign immunity – Tribes may only be sued in state court if they waive sovereign immunity or if Congress has unequivocally abrogated sovereign immunity. Superior courts have in rem jurisdiction over real property, but they do not have subject matter jurisdiction over adverse possession claims involving nonreservation land owned by tribes. Under the “immovable property doctrine” sovereigns enjoy no immunity from actions involving immovable property located in the territory of another sovereign. However, here the immovable property doctrine did not apply because it has never been applied to waive Tribal sovereign immunity. Moreover, Congress has not waived sovereign immunity for claims such as this where plaintiffs claim to have acquired a strip of nonreservation land via adverse possession before the Tribe acquired it. Thus, plaintiff’s quiet title action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Flying T Ranch, Inc. v. Stillaguamish Tribe, No. 103430-0 (Oct. 9, 2025).
Relief from judgment CR 60 – A court may, and in some cases must, grant a Motion to Vacate a judgment per CR 60(b)(11) if a subsequent decision of the court of appeals in a different case establishes the judgment was based on a legal error. The Motion to Vacate must be promptly filed. The trial court’s legal error, aside from not granting the CR 60 Motion to Vacate, was in quieting title in the landowner based on the incorrect conclusion that the six-year statute of limitations to foreclose on a deed of trust accrues from a landowner’s discharge from bankruptcy, when in fact it accrues with each unpaid payment even after the borrower’s personal liability has been discharged in bankruptcy. Luv v. West Coast Servicing, Inc., No. 103031-2 (Oct. 9, 2025).
Editor’s note: Four justices joined the lead opinion. One justice concurred with the lead opinion but would have relied on RAP 2.5(c)(2) to correct the error, not CR 60(b)(11). Four justices joined the dissent which argued among other things 1) CR 60(b)(11) gives trial courts (not the Supreme Court) discretion to set aside a judgment, 2) direct appeal is the proper way to challenge an alleged legal error by the trial court, not a collateral attack under CR 60, and 3) the lead opinion’s application of CR 60 violates the doctrine of finality.
Division I:
Excluded evidence & argument – A court does not violate a defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel or due process by preventing defense counsel from arguing to the jury that certain evidence does not exist when the evidence does exist, but the court excluded the evidence at the defendant’s request. State v. Dervin, No. 85635-9-I (July 7, 2025, published in-part Oct. 6, 2025).
Division II:
Unpublished opinions – Appellant’s counsel cited two unpublished opinions in her brief without identifying them as unpublished, or as non-binding. The court imposed monetary sanctions against her for violating GR 14.1(a) per RAP 18.9(a), and caselaw. Courts may also address violations of GR 14.1(a) by striking the cases cited and their attached arguments. In the Matter of B.E.C, No. 60498-1-II, (Oct. 7, 2025, unpublished).