Ronald Wastewater Dist. v. Olympic View Water& Sewer Dist. ( 2020 )

FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED
FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON
IN CLERK’S OFFICE OCTOBER 15, 2020
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON
OCTOBER 15, 2020
SUSAN L. CARLSON
SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RONALD WASTEWATER DISTRICT, )
a Washington municipal corporation, ) No. 97599-0
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) En Banc
)
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER )
DISTRICT, a Washington municipal )
corporation; TOWN OF WOODWAY, )
a Washington municipal corporation; and )
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a Washington )
municipal corporation, )
)
Respondents, )
)
KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal )
corporation, )
)
Petitioner, )
CITY OF SHORELINE, a Washington )
municipal corporation, )
)
Defendant. )
) Filed: October 15, 2020
JOHNSON, J.—This case involves a dispute over control of sewerage service
to Point Wells. Point Wells is located just north of the King County border, within
No. 97599-0
the boundaries of Snohomish County and Olympic View Water and Sewer District
(Olympic). We must determine the effect of a 1985 superior court order (1985
Order), which purports to annex the Point Wells service area from King County to
Ronald Wastewater District (Ronald). Resolution of this issue entails interpretation
of former Title 56 RCW (1985) and former RCW 36.94.410-.440 (1985) to
determine whether the 1985 court had authority to approve the transfer and
annexation. The trial court held that the 1985 Order annexed Point Wells to Ronald.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that King County could not transfer
annexation rights that it did not have. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
FACTS
This dispute focuses on two specific properties within Point Wells, the
former Standard Oil petroleum plant and Daniel Briggs’s residential property. Both
are located within Snohomish County and Olympic. In addition, the Briggs property
is located within the town of Woodway. For the purposes of this case, references to
Point Wells include both properties, unless otherwise noted.
The sewer system subject to this dispute is known as the Richmond Beach
sewer system (RBSS). Initially, RBSS was operated by King County Sewer District
No. 3 (KCSD #3) and exclusively served King County. In 1970 and 1971, KCSD
#3 contracted with Standard Oil to construct a lift station and provide sewer service
to Standard’s petroleum plant located within Point Wells. King County then
2
No. 97599-0
requested permission from Olympic to provide water service to the Point Wells
area. Olympic replied with “no objections to permitting the Department of Public
Works, King County, to serve the lift station . . . on Richmond Beach Drive, within
our service area.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 912. In 1972, KCSD #3 also contracted
with the property owners to provide sewer service to one lot on the Briggs property.
Subsequently, Ronald contracted directly with the Briggs property owner to provide
service to the additional lots.
In the 1980s, King County sought to divest its sewer operations and transfer
them to local water and sewer districts. To facilitate its divestment plan, King
County lobbied for the creation of the transfer annexation process, eventually
codified as former RCW 36.94.410-.440. LAWS OF 1984, ch. 147, § 1.
King County initiated the transfer of RBSS to Ronald per the newly
established method under former RCW 36.94.410-.440. In doing so, first, KCSD #3
properly transferred RBSS to King County. This transfer is not in dispute. Second,
King County proceeded to transfer RBSS to Ronald. King County obtained
permission from Chevron, the new property owner of the Point Wells petroleum
plant. King County mailed notices and held public hearings for its ratepayers
concerning the transfer to Ronald. Ronald and King County also adopted formal
plans to provide service to the Point Wells area. King County also passed an
ordinance authorizing the transfer.
3
No. 97599-0
King County and Ronald then executed a transfer agreement transferring
RBSS and the “area served,” which it defined as “those parcels of property within
the boundaries described in Addendum A.” CP at 8029. The addendum contained a
legal description of Point Wells and expressly recognized that the area was within
Snohomish County. The agreement also identified the transfer of contractual
obligations. It stated, “The County has certain contractual rights and obligations in
connection with the system. These rights and obligations arise under the agreements
which are attached as Addenda C and D, and incorporated herein by this reference.”
CP at 1092. Attached as addenda were Chevron’s consent to the transfer and KCSD
#3’s contractual agreement with Standard regarding ownership of the lift station and
service over the petroleum plant area. The parties then filed a petition seeking the
superior court’s approval of the transfer.
After holding a hearing, the superior court issued the 1985 Order, which is
the subject of our review. The order approved the transfer of the RBSS from King
County to Ronald. The court found that the “transfer agreement is legally correct
and that there are no owners of related indebtedness to be protected.” CP at 1082. It
also stated:
2. The transfer of the System is to be accomplished in
accordance with the transfer agreement effective as of January 1, 1986.
3. As provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by the
System shall be annexed to and become a part of the District on the
effective date of the transfer.
4
No. 97599-0
CP at 1083. Ronald has exclusively served the Point Wells area since the transfer
became effective in January 1986.
In 2009, the Snohomish County Council redesignated Point Wells as an
urban center. The current property owner, BSRE Point Wells LP, began planning a
large mixed-use urban development for the area. In 2010, Ronald incorporated the
proposed development in its sewer plan. Snohomish County approved Ronald’s
2010 sewer plan and incorporated it into its Growth Management Act (GMA), ch.
36.70A RCW, land use plan. In 2014, the city of Shoreline, located within King
County, sought to assume Ronald and its service area. Snohomish County and
Olympic raised questions over Ronald’s service of Point Wells in proceedings with
the Boundary Review Board (BRB). Olympic then proposed a sewer plan
amendment to build new infrastructure and provide service to Point Wells. In 2016,
the Snohomish County Council approved Olympic’s amendment.
Ronald then filed this current action, in part, seeking a declaratory judgment
to confirm its corporate boundary. Ronald claims that its corporate boundary
includes Point Wells, based on the 1985 Order’s valid annexation of the Point Wells
service area to Ronald’s district.1 Olympic, Woodway, and Snohomish argued that
1
Ronald also sought review of Snohomish County’s action with the Growth Management
Hearing Board (GMHB). CP at 1543-78. The GMHB found that the approval of Olympic’s plan
conflicted with its existing plan recognizing Ronald as the Point Wells service provider and
determined that it was a de facto amendment to Snohomish County’s comprehensive plan,
violating the GMA requirements. This issue is not before us.
5
No. 97599-0
the 1985 Order was erroneous and invalid. Both sets of parties filed cross motions
for summary judgment. The superior court granted Ronald’s partial motion for
summary judgment and declared that the 1985 Order lawfully transferred and
annexed the area to Ronald. The court also determined that the 1985 Order was
valid and binding as a judgment in rem.
Olympic and Woodway appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed,
determining that the 1985 Order was erroneous and void for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals interpreted former RCW 36.94.420 (1985) and
determined that the “area served” subject to transfer and annexation does not
include areas beyond the transferring county’s geographic boundary.
ANALYSIS
We review summary judgment orders de novo. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wash. 2d
358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). It is undisputed that the service territory within
King County’s boundary was validly transferred and annexed to Ronald. The issue
is whether the Point Wells area was properly annexed; that is, who—Ronald or
Olympic—has the right to provide sewer service to the Point Wells area. Point
Wells has received sewer service from King County and Ronald but lies within the
corporate boundaries of Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway. Olympic,
Snohomish, and Woodway argue that to the extent that the order purports to annex
Point Wells to Ronald, it is erroneous because King County could not transfer what
6
No. 97599-0
it did not have. Ronald and King County ask us to uphold the 1985 Order based on
the “first in time” principle and the authorization of sewer districts to operate across
jurisdictions. We hold that to the extent that the 1985 Order annexed Point Wells to
Ronald it is void because under the limited authority of former Title 56 RCW and
former RCW 36.94.410-.440, the court lacked subject matter and personal
jurisdiction to adjudicate such an annexation.
I. Sewer district authority–former Title 56 RCW
First, we analyze the provisions within former Title 56 RCW to determine
whether and when districts generally can annex territory within another jurisdiction.
Sewer districts like Ronald and Olympic are governed by former Title 56 RCW and
are authorized to provide sewer service and perform functions related to such
operation within their service area. Former RCW 56.04.020 (1974); former RCW
56.20.015 (1983); former RCW 56.08.010 (1985). Sewer districts may also provide
sewer service to properties beyond their geographic boundaries. Former RCW
56.08.060 (1981).
Notably, sewer districts have the authority to serve multiple counties. Former
RCW 56.04.020 (sewer districts “may include within their boundaries portions or
all of one or more counties, incorporated cities, or towns or other political
subdivisions”). But when a sewer district includes territory in more than one
county, approval is needed from the county officer or board. Former RCW
7
No. 97599-0
56.02.055 (1982). Sewer districts may also serve areas within other districts—by
agreement.
A sewer district may enter into contracts with any county, city, town,
sewer district, . . . [and may] exercise sewer district powers . . . in areas
within or without the limits of the district: Provided, That if any such
area is located within another existing district duly authorized to
exercise sewer district powers in such area, then sewer service may not
be so provided by contract or otherwise without the consent by
resolution of the board of commissioners of such other district.
Former RCW 56.08.060 (emphasis added).
Consistent with these statutes is the underlying policy that absent permission,
districts may not infringe on areas within another district, which we recognized in
Alderwood Water District v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 62 Wash. 2d 319, 322, 382 P.2d 639
(1963). In Alderwood, we interpreted former RCW 57.08.010 (1959) (permitting
water districts to serve areas outside their own boundaries) and former RCW
57.04.070 (1929) (“‘no lesser water district shall ever be created within the limits in
whole or in part of any water district’”). 62 Wash. 2d at 321-22. We reasoned that a
water district could not serve areas that were within another district unless the area
was first withdrawn from the original district or the original district refused to serve
it. Alderwood, 62 Wash. 2d at 322-23. We noted that water districts could provide
services unilaterally only to areas outside its boundaries that were not within
another district.
8
No. 97599-0
Here, the language of the applicable sewer district statutes parallels the
language of the statute interpreted in Alderwood, former RCW 57.04.070. Sewer
districts may provide service in areas within another district with the permission of
the original district. Former RCW 56.08.060. Additionally, “no lesser sewer district
shall ever be created within the limits in whole or in part of any other sewer district,
except as provided in RCW 56.36.060 and 36.94.420.” Former RCW 56.04.070
(1985).
Ronald asserts that Alderwood does not control under these circumstances
because the transfer annexation process of former RCW 36.94.420 is exempt from
this general prohibition, indicating that a district may unilaterally annex territory
within another district. However, as the Court of Appeals reasoned, former RCW
56.08.060 mandates that overlapping service “by contract or otherwise” is permitted
only with the consent of the original district. Altogether these provisions establish
that if a district cannot unilaterally serve an area within another district without
permission, it follows that a district cannot unilaterally annex an area within another
district without permission. Ronald could not have unilaterally annexed Point Wells
because it was already within Olympic’s boundary, and neither Olympic nor
Snohomish County consented to Ronald’s annexation of Point Wells.
Where a sewer district seeks to annex a territory within another district, the
territory must first be withdrawn from the original district. Former RCW 56.28.010
9
No. 97599-0
(1953). Once it is withdrawn, the registered voters within the territory can petition
for annexation into another district. Former RCW 56.24.070 (1985). The annexation
will be approved either by the county legislative authority or by election. Former
RCW 56.24.140 (1967); former RCW 56.24.090 (1967). An annexation that altered
the corporate boundaries of a district would also be subject to review by the BRB.
Former RCW 56.02.055-.070 (1982). In this case, this process was not followed,
and Olympic and Snohomish County were not involved in the annexation process.
In particular, Olympic did not consent to the annexation of Point Wells.
Within their borders, sewer districts possess the primary authority to operate and
regulate a sewer system. Former RCW 56.04.020; former RCW 36.94.170 (1971).
A district may relinquish its authority only by written consent or a comprehensive
plan amendment and approval by the BRB. Former RCW 36.94.170. Here, in
response to the Seattle Water District’s request to provide water service to Point
Wells, Olympic gave King County permission to serve the area permissively by
contract. At most, even if this permission extended beyond water service and
included the provision of sewer service, it did not constitute a relinquishment of
Olympic’s primary sewerage authority. Without Olympic’s relinquishment, Ronald
and King County had no right to unilaterally annex Point Wells.
10
No. 97599-0
II. Annexation under former RCW 36.94.410-.440
The remaining inquiry is whether the unique transfer annexation process
under former RCW 36.94.410-.440 would otherwise permit the unilateral
annexation of another district’s territory. The meaning of a statute is also a question
of law reviewed de novo. Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash. 2d
1, 9-12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Our ultimate objective is to ascertain and carry out the
legislature’s intent. Plain meaning is discerned from the ordinary meaning of the
language, the statute’s context, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a
whole. If the plain meaning is unambiguous, we give it effect. State v. Armendariz,
160 Wash. 2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007).
Former RCW 36.94.410-.440 uniquely governs a sewer system transfer from
a county to a sewer district. Former RCW 36.94.410 (1984) states:
A system of sewerage, system of water or combined water and
sewerage systems operated by a county under the authority of this
chapter may be transferred from that county to a water or sewer district
in the same manner as is provided for the transfer of those functions
from a water or sewer district to a county in RCW 36.94.310 through
RCW 36.94.340.
(Emphasis added.) The procedure follows the process of former RCW 36.94.310-
.340 (1975), which governs a transfer from a sewer district to a county. The process
is initiated by the adoption of resolutions or ordinances authorizing the transfer.
RCW 36.94.330. Then the district and county execute a written transfer agreement,
outlining the terms of the transfer. Former RCW 36.94.340 (1975). Finally, a
11
No. 97599-0
petition is filed, asking the superior court to “approve and direct the proposed
transfer of property.” Former RCW 36.94.340.
Uniquely, the transfer from a county to a sewer district, under former RCW
36.94.410, goes a step further and may culminate in annexation. Upon the superior
court’s approval and “[i]f so provided in the transfer agreement, the area served by
the system shall, upon completion of the transfer, be deemed annexed to and
become a part of the water or sewer district acquiring the system.” Former RCW
36.94.420 (emphasis added).
The crux of the dispute is whether the subject of annexation, the “area
served,” may include territory that is outside of the transferring county’s borders
and within another district’s geographical area, where the original district did not
consent. Ronald and King County argue that the statute allows a county to
unilaterally transfer area outside its own territory. They rely on the ordinary
meaning of “area served” as simply the areas receiving sewer service from the
system. They contrast it with the language in former RCW 36.94.310, which
contains an express boundary restriction: “a municipal corporation may transfer to
the county within which all of its territory lies, . . . the property constituting its
system of sewerage.” (Emphasis added.) Olympic, Snohomish, and Woodway argue
that the “area served” does not include territory outside the county boundary, even
if the county serves the area by contract.
12
No. 97599-0
The statutory context and related statutes support the conclusion that the
“area served” is limited to territory within the transferring county’s geographic
boundaries. A county cannot transfer the primary service right via annexation to an
area outside of its borders where it provides service by contract.2 Related statutory
provisions support this reasoning because (1) permission is needed whenever
districts or counties provide service within another’s geographic boundary and (2)
the statutes distinguish between full jurisdiction and contractual provisions of
service.
First, the statutes authorizing districts and counties to provide sewer service
outside their boundaries require permission from the original entity. Sewer districts
may serve areas within multiple counties, cities, towns or other political
subdivisions with approval from the original entity, as occurred in this case. Former
RCW 56.04.020; former RCW 56.02.055. As already mentioned, sewer districts can
also serve areas within other districts with consent. Former RCW 56.08.060.
Similarly, counties are authorized to “individually or in conjunction with another
county” operate sewer systems “within all or a portion of the county.” Former RCW
2
Our interpretation of the area subject to annexation under former RCW 36.94.410-.440
(1984) is limited to the statutory scheme as it existed in 1985. The statutes have been
subsequently amended. Notably, chapter 36.93 RCW now defines “service area of a city, town, or
special purpose district” as “all of the area within its corporate boundaries” and, for extensions of
water and sewer service, “the area outside of the corporate boundaries which it is designated to
serve pursuant to a coordinated water system plan approved in accordance with RCW
70A.100.050[] and . . . a comprehensive sewerage plan approved in accordance with chapter
36.94 RCW and RCW 90.48.110.” RCW 36.93.090(4).
13
No. 97599-0
36.94.020 (1981). Counties may also operate within the boundaries of an existing
sewer district with the district’s written consent. Former RCW 36.94.170.
In contrast, the annexation procedure of former RCW 36.94.410-.440 (1984)
does not include a consent requirement. The annexation procedure involves two
entities: the transferring county and the receiving sewer district. Former RCW
36.94.420. Notice is given only to the ratepayers and by publication. Where certain
statutory language “is used in one instance, and different language in another, there
is a difference in legislative intent.” Seeber v. Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 96 Wash. 2d
135, 139, 634 P.2d 303 (1981). The absence of a consent requirement under former
RCW 36.94.410-.440 evinces that “area served” does not include territory outside
the transferring county’s boundaries. This interpretation is also consistent with
former Title 56 RCW and its limitation against the unilateral annexation of territory
that is within a separate district.
Second, the statutes draw a key distinction between temporary contractual
service and full jurisdiction. As occurred here, sewer districts may contract with
other entities for the provision of services. Former RCW 56.08.060; former RCW
36.94.170 (1971) (authorizing counties to serve within sewer districts under
contract). The provision of services with permission or by contract are by nature
revocable. Whereas, districts or counties otherwise retain full jurisdiction to operate
a sewer system within their own territories. Former RCW 56.04.020; former RCW
14
No. 97599-0
56.08.060; former RCW 36.94.020. Annexation is a grant of full jurisdiction that
includes the provision of services and the power to issue bonds and collect taxes; it
is more than a contractual relationship. See former RCW 36.94.430 (1984); former
RCW 56.36.060 (1981). No authority exists showing that this form of permissive
service may be converted to full annexation authority
Further, the identified subject of the underlying transfer under former RCW
36.94.410 is the sewer system “operated by a county under the authority of this
chapter[, 36.94 RCW].” A county’s power to operate, maintain, and generate funds
for its sewer system is limited to territory “within all or a portion of the county.”
Former RCW 36.94.020.
The plain meaning of the “area served” subject to transfer and annexation
under former RCW 36.94.410-.440 is limited to areas within the transferring
county’s geographic boundary. To be properly transferred and annexed under these
statutes, the territory must be exclusively within the transferring county’s
geographic service area and cannot be within another district’s service area, unless
the existing district relinquishes its sewerage authority to the transferring county
under former RCW 36.94.170. Here, King County could not transfer annexation
authority of Point Wells to Ronald because Point Wells is not within King County,
it is within Snohomish County. The annexation is further prohibited because Point
Wells was within Olympic’s geographic boundary and Olympic did not relinquish
15
No. 97599-0
its sewerage authority to King County. The statutory authority does not permit a
hostile takeover of another district’s service area without notice or permission,
which is what happened here.
However, under the transfer agreement, a county may transfer its existing
contractual obligations, which may include the provision of services to areas within
other districts. Former RCW 36.94.410; RCW 36.94.330. But service provided
permissively as a contractual obligation is not subject to annexation. Ronald’s
reliance on the “first in time” principle is misplaced. LAWS OF 1981, ch. 45, § 1. The
statutory scheme does not permit the transfer annexation process to transform a
contractual provision of services into annexation. Although Ronald has served the
area since 1986, it has done so by contract under the obligation it inherited from
King County. This provision of service was by nature permissive and revocable.
The 1985 court lacked the statutory authority to annex the Point Wells area, which
was being served by Ronald on a contract basis.
III. Jurisdiction
Ronald and King County assert that the time to properly challenge the order
has passed. They argue that because this is a collateral challenge, even if the 1985
Order is erroneous, it was entered with proper jurisdiction and is merely voidable.
Olympic, Snohomish County, and Woodway claim that the order is void for lack of
personal and subject matter jurisdiction and can be struck down at any time. The
16
No. 97599-0
parties further dispute the circumstances under which an order may be declared
void.
Relevant to the issue here, our jurisprudence has established that
“[t]here are in general three jurisdictional elements in every valid
judgment, namely, jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction of
the person, and the power or authority to render the particular
judgment. For the absence of any one of these elements, when
properly apparent, the judgment may be vacated at any time.”
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gooley, 196 Wash. 357, 370, 83 P.2d 221
(1938) (quoting 1 A.C. FREEMAN, A TREATISE OF THE LAW OF JUDGMENTS § 226
(5th ed. rev. 1925)). Here, the latter two jurisdictional elements are implicated:
personal jurisdiction and authority to render a particular judgment, which in modern
cases has been recognized as a component of subject matter jurisdiction. The 1985
Order is flawed in both ways.
First, Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway were not parties to the
1985 superior court action, so the court did not have the authority to enter an order
affecting their sewerage service rights. These entities were not joined as necessary
parties under CR 19 or given personal notice of the 1985 action. To determine
whether joinder is needed for a just adjudication, courts engage in a three-step
analysis. Courts determine whether the absent party is necessary, whether joinder is
feasible, and, if joinder is unavailable, whether the action should still proceed
without the party. Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wash. 2d 214, 221-22, 285
17
No. 97599-0
P.3d 52 (2012). An absentee is a necessary party where they claim a legally
protected interest in the action and their ability to protect that interest will be
impaired or impeded by adjudication in their absence. Auto. United, 175 Wash. 2d at
223. Point Wells was located within the geographic boundaries of Snohomish
County, Olympic, and Woodway. The purported transfer and annexation of the
Point Wells service area to Ronald directly implicated their interests in the
provision of sewerage service to Point Wells. In particular, Olympic possessed the
primary authority to provide service to Point Wells, and the 1985 Order purports to
extinguish and reassign that authority. Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway
were necessary parties and joinder would have been feasible.
Ronald and King County assert that the 1985 action was an in rem
proceeding and is binding on nonparties. They claim that they followed the required
notice procedures of former RCW 36.94.410-.440. As we discussed above, former
RCW 36.94.410-.440 does not permit the transfer and annexation of territory
outside the transferring county’s geographic boundary, so compliance with this
procedure was inadequate to adjudicate the annexation of Point Wells. Assuming
their characterization of the 1985 proceeding as in rem is correct, it does not excuse
their failure to join or adequately notify parties with legally protected interests. See
Port of Grays Harbor v. Bankr. Estate of Roderick Timber Co., 73 Wash. App. 334,
18
No. 97599-0
869 P.2d 417 (1994) (discussing the required joinder of a party in an in rem
condemnation proceeding).
There were two layers of notice required here. At minimum, due process
requires that in “any proceeding which is to be accorded finality” notice must be
given and “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct.
652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950) (emphasis added). Further, to obtain personal jurisdiction
over a party, Washington law requires that “‘[b]eyond due process [requirements],
statutory service requirements must be complied with in order for the court to
finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties.’” Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wash. 2d
726, 734, 903 P.2d 455 (1995) (second alteration in original) (quoting Thayer v.
Edmonds, 8 Wash. App. 36, 40, 503 P.2d 1110 (1972)). Ronald and King County
failed to comply with these requirements. Notices of the King County Council
hearing and 1985 court hearing were published in the newspaper. Assuming these
notices were constitutionally adequate, service by publication remained unavailable.
Service by publication is reserved for those instances where the party cannot be
found within the state. RCW 4.28.100. Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway
were not served with process. As a result, the 1985 court never obtained personal
jurisdiction over these entities.
19
No. 97599-0
We previously held that the municipal court lacked the authority to issue
relief that implicated the interests of a nonparty. City of Seattle v. Fontanilla, 128
Wash. 2d 492, 502, 909 P.2d 1294 (1996). The municipal court declined to order the
State to reimburse the litigant under RCW 9A.16.110 because the State was not a
party and had no notice of the action. We held that the municipal court acted
properly and was “without authority to order an entity that is not a party to the
litigation to do anything.” Fontanilla, 128 Wash. 2d at 502. This is consistent with the
general rule that a judgment is not binding on an entity that has not been made a
party to the action by service of process.
Similarly, in this case Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway were not
made parties to the 1985 action, although they possessed a legally protected interest
over sewerage service in Point Wells. The 1985 court failed to obtain personal
jurisdiction over these parties and, thus, lacked the authority to issue an annexation
order that implicated their rights and interests. To the extent that it did so here, that
portion of the 1985 Order is void.
Second, the 1985 Order is void because the court lacked the general statutory
authority to order the annexation of Point Wells to Ronald. We take this opportunity
to expound on the doctrine of subject matter jurisdiction. We hold that subject
matter jurisdiction incorporates the court’s authority to issue a particular form of
relief, as determined by the nature of the case.
20
No. 97599-0
In Marley v. Department of Labor & Industries, we reviewed an
administrative denial of a worker’s compensation claim. 125 Wash. 2d 533, 541, 886
P.2d 189 (1994). The plaintiff argued that the Department of Labor and Industries’
order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it incorrectly
determined that she was living in a state of abandonment under RCW 51.08.020.
We held that at most, the department made an erroneous decision regarding
abandonment but it had proper jurisdiction to decide the claim, that is, whether
Marley was living in a state of abandonment. We adopted the Restatement (Second)
of Judgments’ approach to subject matter jurisdiction: “‘A judgment may properly
be rendered against a party only if the court has authority to adjudicate the type of
controversy involved in the action.’” Marley, 125 Wash. 2d at 539 (quoting
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 11 (AM. LAW INST. 1982)). We held that
“[a] court or agency does not lack subject matter jurisdiction solely because it may
lack authority to enter a given order.” Marley, 125 Wash. 2d at 539 (emphasis added).
Rather, a court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction when it attempts to decide a type
of controversy over which it has no authority to adjudicate.” Marley, 125 Wash. 2d at
539. This implies that the tribunal has “no authority to decide the claim at all, let
alone order a particular kind of relief.” Marley, 125 Wash. 2d at 539.
Based on this discussion, Ronald claims that the court’s authority to enter a
particular order is wholly separate from subject matter jurisdiction. However, our
21
No. 97599-0
discussion in Marley stands for the proposition that the court’s authority to enter a
particular order is simply one part of subject matter jurisdiction. When determining
subject matter jurisdiction, the controlling question is whether the court possessed
the authority to adjudicate the type of controversy involved in the action. We
defined “type of controversy” as referring to “the nature of a case and the kind of
relief sought.” Dougherty v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 150 Wash. 2d 310, 317, 76 P.3d
1183 (2003). Thus, subject matter jurisdiction is composed of two necessary
components: (1) the authority to adjudicate the particular claim and (2) the authority
to issue a particular form of relief. These two components are intertwined. The form
of relief is limited by the nature of the particular claim. For example, in a quiet title
property claim, the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is confined to issuing the
appropriate relief, that is, to quiet title. The court would exceed its relief authority if
it were to issue tax relief. To the extent an order did so, that portion of the order
would be void. The dispositive inquiry to determine subject matter jurisdiction is
whether the court had overall authority to adjudicate the particular claim, and the
authority to issue a particular form of relief follows. Logically, we look to the relief
issued because it is indicative of whether the court adjudicated a controversy that it
should not have. Both are necessary components of subject matter jurisdiction.
Although we reviewed a contempt order in Dike v. Dike, our discussion is
informative here. 75 Wash. 2d 1, 8, 448 P.2d 490 (1968). In that case, we held that
22
No. 97599-0
even where the underlying order is erroneous and the party fails to comply with it,
the court maintains subject matter jurisdiction to enter a contempt order. We held
that this was a legal error, not a jurisdictional deficiency. Notably, we distinguished
that where the court “‘has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter, and
has the power to make the order or rulings complained of, but the latter is based
upon a mistaken view of the law or upon the erroneous application of legal
principles, it is erroneous,’” as opposed to void for lack of jurisdiction. Dike, 75
Wash. 2d at 7 (quoting Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 536, 25 S.E.2d 352
(1943)). The long-standing principle still applies that “‘[o]bviously the power to
decide includes the power to decide wrong, and an erroneous decision is as binding
as one that is correct until set aside or corrected.’” Dike, 75 Wash. 2d at 8 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Robertson, 181 Va. at 537). But legal errors
occur within a court’s proper exercise of authority, where the court has the authority
to adjudicate the claim and errs in its application of law or fact. Whereas,
jurisdictional deficiencies result from a court acting outside of its adjudicative
authority where it lacks any power to issue relief.
The distinction between the error in this case and the potential errors
discussed in Marley and Dike is that those courts were authorized to exercise
discretion and, at best, merely exercised that discretion improperly. Here, the 1985
court was not statutorily authorized to exercise any discretion over the annexation
23
No. 97599-0
of Point Wells. The nature of this controversy is annexation. Annexation authority
is a plenary power enjoyed by the State, which the legislature may delegate to
courts by statute. Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150
Wash. 2d 791, 83 P.3d 419 (2004). In this case, former RCW 36.94.410-.440 is a
grant of authority from the legislature, allowing superior courts to effectuate the
transfer and annexation of service area from a county to a sewer district. As
discussed above, former RCW 36.94.410-.440 limited the court’s adjudicative
authority to territory within King County’s geographic service area. The inclusion
of Point Wells, which is outside King County’s geographic service area, without
the involvement of Snohomish County, Olympic, and Woodway is void because it
exceeded the court’s adjudicative authority.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further
proceedings regarding Ronald’s remaining claims. We hold that to the extent the
1985 Order purports to annex Point Wells to Ronald, it is void. Ronald’s geographic
boundary does not include Point Wells and does not extend into Snohomish County.
Point Wells remains within the geographic boundaries of Olympic and Snohomish
County.
24
No. 97599-0
WE CONCUR:
25
Ronald Wastewater Dist. et al. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist. et al., No. 97599-0
(González, J., concurring)
NO. 97599-0
GONZÁLEZ, J. (concurring) – I agree with the majority that the 1985
superior court order is void to the extent it purports to annex an area in Snohomish
County to a sewer district primarily located in King County. While the web of
statutes governing annexation of territory by a sewer district are not a model of
clarity and consistency, it is clear that a cross-county sewer district can be created
only with the participation of both counties’ legislative authorities and, at least in
most cases, a public vote. See RCW 57.02.050; RCW 57.04.030-.050. As the
majority properly observes, King County could not use the imprimatur of a judicial
proceeding to transfer annexation rights it did not have to allow a King County
sewer district to annex territory in Snohomish County. Majority at 2.
1
Ronald Wastewater Dist. et al. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist. et al., No. 97599-0
(González, J., concurring)
I write separately to stress how limited our holding is lest it be seen as an
invitation to attack settled judgment on the basis of legal error. Trial judges in
Washington State do more than resolve controversies. Among other things, they
may preside over marriages and adoptions, administer oaths, and, under certain
circumstances, approve the transfer of a sewage system from a water-sewer district
to a county and from a county to a water-sewage district. RCW 5.28.010; RCW
26.04.050; RCW 26.33.240; RCW 36.94.310-.340, .410-.440. While the first three
judicial functions have their roots in antiquity, a court’s subject matter jurisdiction
over petitions to recognize transfer of responsibility for water-sewage systems is
purely statutory and appears to be a legislative response to the modern difficulties
of providing municipal water and sewer services. LAWS OF 1984, ch. 147; LAWS
OF 1975, 1st Ex. Sess. ch. 188; see also generally Cedar River Water & Sewer
Dist. v. King County, 178 Wash. 2d 763, 770-74, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) (discussing
delivery of sewer water and sewer services in the upper Puget Sound basin);
Municipality of Metro. Seattle v. City of Seattle, 57 Wash. 2d 446, 448-50, 357 P.2d
863 (1960) (discussing the creation of King County Metro).
While the county is the basic unit of government in Washington State, an
enormous number of municipal and quasi-municipal corporations provide the
services needed for the health and welfare of our society, both within their districts
and by contract outside of them. ROBERT F. UTTER & HUGH D. SPITZER, THE
2
Ronald Wastewater Dist. et al. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist. et al., No. 97599-0
(González, J., concurring)
WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION 187 (2d ed. 2013); Title 52 RCW (fire
protection districts); Title 54 RCW (public utility districts); Title 57 RCW (water-
sewer districts); Alderwood Water Dist. v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 62 Wash. 2d 319,
322, 382 P.2d 639 (1963). Counties in Washington provide enormously important
public goods. According to the United States Census Bureau, as of 2017, there
were 1,285 quasi-municipal governments in our state providing everything from air
transportation to sewage services to transportation. 2017 Census of Governments:
Organization, tbl. 8, lines 1298-1334, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html
[https://perma.cc/F7FF-VYJU]. There are around 2,000 municipal and quasi-
municipal corporations in our state. Hugh D. Spitzer, Washington: The Past and
Present Populist State, in THE CONSTITUTIONALISM OF AMERICAN STATES 782
(George E. Connor & Christopher W. Hammond eds., 2008).
Our legislature has created mechanisms to create these districts and adjust
their boundaries. E.g., chs. 52.02-.04 RCW (fire districts); ch. 57.04 RCW (water-
sewer districts). Generally, these mechanisms require a proper petition, a public
hearing, and a ratifying vote of the people in the relevant area. E.g., RCW
57.04.030-.050. In addition to creating general systems for creating municipal and
quasi-municipal districts with taxing authority, our legislature has also created a
shortcut that allows counties and water-sewage districts within that county to
3
Ronald Wastewater Dist. et al. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist. et al., No. 97599-0
(González, J., concurring)
transfer water-sewage systems between them by agreement, rather than by petition
and election. RCW 36.94.310-.340, .410-.440. Under the statutory shortcut, a
county and a water-sewage district wholly within that county have to give notice to
ratepayers, publish notice in paper of general circulation, hold a hearing before the
county legislative body, and seek approval of the superior court of the county.
RCW 36.94.310, .340, .420. The general requirement of a vote of the people is
eliminated.
This statutory shortcut is not available for sewer districts that cross county
boundaries. RCW 36.94.310, .340, .420. Perhaps the legislature reasoned that
since the voters outside of the county had not had an opportunity to vote for the
legislative authorities that initiated and consented to the transfer, it would be
inappropriate to bypass the normal process and the normal ratifying election.
Whatever the reason, no court had the power to confirm cross-county sewer district
territorial annexations in 1985 or (as far as I can tell) at common law. Had
Snohomish County or Olympic View Water and Sewer District intervened in the
1985 proceedings, the trial court should have promptly granted a motion to
dismiss.
Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the 1985 order was entered
without subject matter jurisdiction. “The critical concept in determining whether a
court has subject matter jurisdiction is the ‘type of controversy.’” Dougherty v.
4
Ronald Wastewater Dist. et al. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist. et al., No. 97599-0
(González, J., concurring)
Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 150 Wash. 2d 310, 315, 76 P.3d 1183 (2003) (quoting
Marley v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 125 Wash. 2d 533, 539, 886 P.2d 189 (1994)).
Approving a cross-county sewer district annexation is simply too different a case
from one seeking the approval of an in-county transfer of a sewage system. The
differences between those two types of cases may seem picayune but are in fact
profound. It goes to the very way our state constitution has divided up power and
responsibility between the legislature and the courts and between the state, county,
and local governments. WASH. CONST. art. II, XI.
I emphasize, however, that Washington State superior courts are courts of
general jurisdiction. WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 6; Wagner v. Alderson, 91 Wash.
157, 160, 157 P. 476 (1916). If one state superior court possesses subject matter
jurisdiction to hear a type of case, all state superior courts possess subject matter
jurisdiction to hear that type of case. Dougherty, 150 Wash. 2d at 317. Here, no
court had that subject matter jurisdiction to hear this type of case. I would use our
broad authority to craft the appropriate remedy recognized in RAP 12.2 and hold
the 1985 order void. See also CR 60(b)(5).
With these observations, I respectfully concur.
5
Ronald Wastewater Dist., et al. v. Olympic View Water and Sewer Dist., et al., No. 97599-0 (González,
J., concurring)
____________________________
6