CITE: 88 Wn.2d 516, 563 P.2d 821
SEATTLE-FIRST NAT'L BANK v. KONZ
CAUSE NUMBER: 44595
FILE DATE: May 5, 1977
CASE TITLE: Seattle-First National Bank, Plaintiff, Lou
Stanton, et al, Appellants, v. Stephen
S. Konz, Respondent.
[1] Courts of Limited Jurisdiction - Jurisdictional Limit - Nonattorney Justice. In counties which are subject to the 1961 justice court act (RCW 3.30-3.74) civil jurisdiction is governed by RCW 3.66.020(1), which establishes $1,000 as the jurisdictional limit for both attorney and nonattorney justices.
NATURE OF ACTION: A judgment was entered by a nonattorney district court judge and garnishment proceedings were initiated to enforce it.
Superior Court: The garnishee and judgment debtors sought superior court review by certiorari. On May 10, 1976, the Superior Court for Ferry County, No. 6178, B. E. Kohls, J., ordered the garnishee to honor the writ.
Supreme Court: The trial court is AFFIRMED, the court holding that there is no distinction between attorney and nonattorney justices under the 1961 justice court act.
COUNSEL: RICHARD A. PERRY, for appellants.
NANSEN, PRICE & HOWE, by MICHAEL D. HOWE, for respondent.
AUTHOR OF MAJORITY OPINION: Brachtenbach, J.-
MAJORITY OPINION: The sole issue in this case is the jurisdictional limit of a part time, nonattorney district court judge in a county which has elected to come within the 1961 justice court act, RCW 3.30-3.74.
A judgment of $924.16 in favor of a collection agency was entered by the Ferry County District Court. The judge of that court served part time and was a nonlawyer. After judgment, the collection agency obtained a writ of garnishment against Seattle First National Bank. The bank and the judgment debtors petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of certiorari, contending that the district court judge did not have jurisdictional authority to enter a judgment in excess of $500. The writ was denied and the bank ordered to honor the writ of garnishment. The judgment debtors appeal. We affirm.
Appellants contend that the statute which sets civil jurisdiction for a nonlawyer judge is RCW 3.20.020(2)(a). That statute does distinguish between lawyer and nonlawyer judges and places a $500 maximum on the latter.
[1] The total answer to appellants' position is that Ferry County has elected, pursuant to RCW 3.30.020, to come within RCW 3.30-3.74, the 1961 justice court act. That act alternatively denominates these courts as district courts. RCW 3.30.030. That act recognizes that under limited circumstances a nonlawyer may be a district court judge. RCW 3.34.060. It likewise authorizes part-time district court judges under certain conditions. RCW 3.34.040.
Under RCW 3.66.020(1), the district court's civil jurisdiction is $1,000. No distinction is drawn between lawyer and nonlawyer judges. That is the controlling jurisdictional statute.
While RCW 3.20.020 still governs courts not mandatorily or voluntarily under RCW 3.30-3.74, it is not applicable to those courts established under these latter statutes. The acts are separate and mutually exclusive. Therefore the district court did have jurisdiction to enter the judgment in this case.
The denial of the writ of certiorari is affirmed.
CONCURRING JUDGES: Wright, C.J., and Rosellini, Hamilton, Stafford, Utter, Horowitz, Dolliver, and Hicks, JJ., concur.
POST-OPINION INFORMATION: