144 Wn.2d 118, LAKEWOOD v. PIERCE COUNTY

«39» Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998) (citing Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wn.2d 345, 349, 588 P.2d 1346 (1979)).

«40» Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tydings, 125 Wn.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994) (citing Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195, 199, 822 P.2d 243 (1992)).

126 LAKEWOOD v. PIERCE COUNTY July 2001
144 Wn.2d 118

Petitioner City of Lakewood makes assignments of error which are generally summarized as follows:«41»

The Court of Appeals erred by imposing a standard of considering oral rulings only where the judgment is ambiguous rather than considering the oral decision so long as there is no inconsistency; the Court erred by discarding the facts of the case as spelled out in Judge Bryan's oral decision, when it concluded there was no clear, cogent and convincing evidence to impose a constructive trust; and the Court erred by construing Petitioner's argument to mean they were the intended beneficiaries of the constructive trust instead of the citizens affected by the closure of Woodbrook Road.

Constructive Trusts

"Equitable relief is available only if there is no adequate legal remedy."«42» A constructive trust is an equitable remedy which arises when the person holding title to property has an equitable duty to convey it to another on the grounds that they would be unjustly enriched if permitted to retain it.«43» Constructive trusts are imposed when there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence of the basis for impressing the trust.«44»

Petitioner City of Lakewood claims the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that oral rulings should be considered only when the judgment is ambiguous.«45» The Court of Appeals cited State v. Eppens for that proposition.«46» The court concluded the judgment in this case is not ambiguous and contains no restrictions on use of the

«41» Pet. for Review at 2.

«42» Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 252, 692 P.2d 793 (1984).

«43» Baker v. Leonard, 120 Wn.2d 538, 547-48, 843 P.2d 1050 (1993).

«44» Id.

«45» Pet. for Review at 1.

«46» City of Lakewood, 102 Wn. App. at 174. The Court of Appeals stated "[w]e only consider oral rulings where the judgment is ambiguous." See State v. Eppens, 30 Wn. App. 119, 633 P.2d 92 (1981).

July 2001 LAKEWOOD v. PIERCE COUNTY 127
144 Wn.2d 118

proceeds.«47» If findings of fact are incomplete, the appellate court may look to the trial court's oral decision to eliminate speculation concerning the legal theory upon which the trial court based its decision.«48»

The Court of Appeals in Eppens concluded that "[a] trial court's oral decision may be considered, . . . in interpreting findings of fact and conclusions of law, so long as there is no inconsistency."«49» Petitioner correctly argues the court in Eppens did not indicate that oral rulings would be considered only when the judgment is ambiguous. The court in that case concluded that a trial court's oral decision may be considered to interpret findings of fact and conclusions of law so long as there is no inconsistency.«50» Eppens is distinguishable from this case because it is a criminal case involving interpretation of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is a civil case involving interpretation of a judgment. When findings are incomplete, appellate courts may look to the trial court's oral decision to interpret the judgment.«51» Ambiguity is not required.

Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred by not considering the facts of this case as articulated in Judge Bryan's oral decision when it concluded there was no clear, cogent and convincing evidence upon which to impose a

«47» City of Lakewood, 102 Wn. App. at 174. The Court of Appeals indicated the judgment states that "'[t]he court finds total judgment to be in the amount of $3,817,266 in favor of the [the County] and against the [United States].'"

«48» Schoonover v. Carpet World, Inc., 91 Wn.2d 173, 177, 588 P.2d 729 (1978); see also Heikkinen v. Hansen, 57 Wn.2d 840, 845, 360 P.2d 147 (1961) (When the findings of fact are incomplete or defective, the oral decision of the trial court eliminates any speculation as to the legal theory upon which the trial court based its decision.); Bowman v. Webster, 42 Wn.2d 129, 135, 253 P.2d 934 (1953) ("Where the findings of fact are incomplete or defective in some particular so that a doubt exists as to the theory on which the case was decided, we are sometimes able to overcome the difficulty by referring to the oral or memorandum decision of the trial court."); Structurals N.W., Ltd. v. Fifth & Park Place, Inc., 33 Wn. App. 710, 715, 658 P.2d 679 (1983) ("In the absence of written findings this court may resort to the trial court's oral decision to determine the court's reasons for so deciding.").

«49» Eppens, 30 Wn. App. at 126.

«50» See id.

«51» See Schoonover, 91 Wn.2d at 177.

128 LAKEWOOD v. PIERCE COUNTY July 2001
144 Wn.2d 118

constructive trust.«52» Respondent contends that, although the court stated the judgment was not ambiguous and did not allow resort to an oral opinion, the court nevertheless did review the specifics of Judge Bryan's oral opinion and explained why it did not support Petitioner's case.«53»

Respondent is correct in asserting that the Court of Appeals considered Judge Bryan's oral decision. The Court of Appeals quoted the legal test set forth in that decision and discussed its substance, stating "Although the federal court in explaining its award discussed the cost of providing alternative traffic ways, the final judgment was general and simply awarded a dollar amount."«54» Although not required to do so,«55» the Court of Appeals considered the oral decision in reaching its conclusion that there was no clear, cogent and convincing evidence upon which to impose a constructive trust.«56»

Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred in construing its argument to mean it was seeking to become the beneficiary of the constructive trust when it was really claiming that citizens affected by the closure of Woodbrook Road are the beneficiaries.«57» Respondent Pierce County responds that Petitioner does not have standing to seek compensation on behalf of itself or any of its individual citizens. Respondent argues that even if Petitioner did have standing, the affected citizens have already settled with Pierce County and any further claims for damages are barred by the statute of limitations.«58»

«52» Pet. for Review at 1.

«53» Answer to Pet. for Review at 7.

«54» City of Lakewood, 102 Wn. App. at 175.

«55» See Schoonover, 91 Wn.2d at 177 (When the findings are incomplete, the appellate court may look to the trial court's oral decision.).

«56» Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an oral decision may be used in conjunction with a written decision without reference to ambiguity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).

«57» Pet. for Review at 2.

«58» Answer to Pet. for Review at 12-13. Respondent does not cite any authority for

July 2001 LAKEWOOD v. PIERCE COUNTY 129
144 Wn.2d 118

Standing is placed in issue when the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is the proper party to request adjudication, and not whether the issue is justiciable.«59» To file an action for a constructive trust, the party must show the trust arose from the relationship of the parties involved«60» and that the property justly belongs to that party.«61» Bogert's treatise on trusts and trustees states:

The court must give expression to the idea that the defendant has been under an equitable duty to give the complainant the benefit of the property ever since the defendant began to hold unjustly, by holding that the defendant has since the inception been in the same position as if he had been an express trustee of the property for the complainant.«62»

To establish a constructive trust, Petitioner must show it was entitled to the benefit of the property from the time Respondent Pierce County began to hold the funds.«63» Petitioner cannot show it has been entitled to the property since Respondent began holding the judgment proceeds because Petitioner City of Lakewood was not even in existence when the federal judgment was rendered on November 1, 1993. Petitioner was not incorporated until February 28, 1996. Petitioner is thus unable to meet the requirements for establishing a constructive trust in its favor against Respondent Pierce County.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals were correct in concluding that Petitioner City of Lakewood had not established a constructive trust by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

its proposition that any further claims for damages are barred by the statute of limitations.

«59» Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968).

«60» Nicolai v. Desilets, 185 Wash. 435, 436-37, 55 P.2d 604 (1936).

«61» Id. at 437.

«62» George Gleason Bogert and George Taylor Bogert, Trusts and Trustees § 471, at 6 (2d ed. 1978) (emphasis added).

«63» See id.

130 BD. OF DIRS. v. ALLSTATE INS. CO. July 2001
144 Wn.2d 130

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Ambiguity need not be found before an appellate court may look to a trial court's oral decision to interpret a judgment rendered by the trial court. Although not required to do so, the Court of Appeals considered the oral decision of United States District Court Judge Robert J. Bryan in concluding there was no clear, cogent and convincing evidence upon which to impose a constructive trust in favor of Petitioner City of Lakewood against Respondent Pierce County. Petitioner City of Lakewood was not even in existence until more than two years after judgment was rendered in favor of Pierce County in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the order of the Thurston County Superior Court granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Pierce County.

Alexander, C.J., and Johnson, Madsen, Sanders, Ireland, Bridge, Chambers, and Owens, JJ., concur.