facts constituting defense in Washington

2026It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove that the facts constituting the claim were not and could not have been discovered by due diligence within the applicable limitations period. 8 Clare, 129 Wn.

2021When a plaintiff claims the statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove “that the facts constituting the claim were not and could not have been discovered by due diligence within the applicable limitations period.” Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 129 Wn.

2026Default judgments are “not favor[ed]” because we “prefer to give parties their day in court and have controversies determined on their merits.” Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745 , 754, 161 P.3d 956 (2007).

2026Default judgments are “not favor[ed]” because we “prefer to give parties their day in court and have controversies determined on their merits.” Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745 , 754, 161 P.3d 956 (2007).

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2021App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2024Shepard Ambulance, Inc. v. Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson, 95 Wn. App. 231, 239 , 974 P.2d 1275 (1999).

2014At issue here are factors one, two, and four.1 "To establish a prima facie defense, affidavits supporting motions to vacate default judgments must set out the facts constituting a defense and cannot merely state allegations and conclusions." Shepard Ambulance, 95 Wn.

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2021App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000) (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968)); see CR 60(e)(1) (requiring party seeking vacation to provide an affidavit “setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding”); CR 12(b)(2) (listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense). 8 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 703 , 161 P.3d 345 (2007) (citing Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576, 581 , 599 P.2d 1289 (1979)). 9 Id. at 705 (citing Wh

2005The plaintiff is charged with what a reasonable inquiry would have discovered. “[0]ne who has notice of facts sufficient to put him upon inquiry is deemed to have notice of all acts which reasonable inquiry would disclose.” Hawkes v. Hoffman, 56 Wash. 120, 126 , 105 P. 156 (1909).[ 6 ] Thus, the discovery rule requires a plaintiff to use due diligence in discovering the basis for the cause of action. 7 ¶8 The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the facts constituting the claim were not and could not have been discovered by due diligence within the applicable limitations period. 8 Whethe

2005The plaintiff is charged with what a reasonable inquiry would have discovered. “[0]ne who has notice of facts sufficient to put him upon inquiry is deemed to have notice of all acts which reasonable inquiry would disclose.” Hawkes v. Hoffman, 56 Wash. 120, 126 , 105 P. 156 (1909).[ 6 ] Thus, the discovery rule requires a plaintiff to use due diligence in discovering the basis for the cause of action. 7 ¶8 The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the facts constituting the claim were not and could not have been discovered by due diligence within the applicable limitations period. 8 Whethe

2026E.g., Lesters Painting, LLC v. Peraza, 36 Wn. App. 2d 845 , 847-48, 585 P.3d 736 (2025); VanderStoep v. Guthrie, 200 Wn. App. 507 , 511, 402 P.3d 883 (2017).

2026E.g., Lesters Painting, LLC v. Peraza, 36 Wn. App. 2d 845 , 847-48, 585 P.3d 736 (2025); VanderStoep v. Guthrie, 200 Wn. App. 507 , 511, 402 P.3d 883 (2017).

2026“A trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” Id. 5 CR 60(b)(1) allows a court “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just” to grant a moving party relief from an order due to a party’s “[m]istakes, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order.” A motion to vacate “shall” be “supported by the affidavit of the applicant . . . setting forth a concise statement of the facts . . . upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, th

2024Childs v. Allen, 125 Wn. App. 50, 58 , 105 P.3d 411 (2004).

2024CR 60(e)(1) requires only that a motion be “supported by the affidavit of the applicant or the applicant’s attorney setting forth a concise statement of the facts or errors upon which the motion is based, and if the moving party be a defendant, the facts constituting a defense to the action or proceeding.” Thus, a CR 60(b) movant may rely on an affidavit “to proffer evidence which, if proved, would entitle that defendant to relief,” as “the purpose of requiring the defendant to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie defense is simply to avoid a useless subsequent trial.” TMT, 140 Wn. App.

1996There, we held that defenses asserted in the defendant’s answer, which was filed after the default judgment, were sufficient to establish a prima facie defense. 41 Wn.

1996App. 323 , 704 P.2d 164 (1985), where we reversed the trial court’s failure to grant the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment although the defendant violated CR 60(e)(1) by failing to support his motion to vacate with a statement of the facts constituting his defense.

1986It is insufficient to merely state allegations and conclusions." Commercial Courier Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 13 Wn.

1985"The construction of a rule by the agency which promulgated it is entitled to great weight." Liquor Control Bd. v. State Personnel Bd., 88 Wn.2d 368, 379 , 561 P.2d *264 195 (1977); Washington State Employees Ass'n v. Cleary, 86 Wn.2d 124 , 542 P.2d 1249 (1975).

1985"The construction of a rule by the agency which promulgated it is entitled to great weight." Liquor Control Bd. v. State Personnel Bd., 88 Wn.2d 368, 379 , 561 P.2d *264 195 (1977); Washington State Employees Ass'n v. Cleary, 86 Wn.2d 124 , 542 P.2d 1249 (1975).

1985"The construction of a rule by the agency which promulgated it is entitled to great weight." Liquor Control Bd. v. State Personnel Bd., 88 Wn.2d 368, 379 , 561 P.2d *264 195 (1977); Washington State Employees Ass'n v. Cleary, 86 Wn.2d 124 , 542 P.2d 1249 (1975).

1933Hoefer v. Sawtelle, 43 Wash. 23 , 85 Pac. 853 .

1933Hoefer v. Sawtelle, 43 Wash. 23 , 85 Pac. 853 .

1928The property owner is nowhere in this law invited to appear and make objections, if any he may have, until we reach §105 (p. 568), where he is accorded the right to appear and set forth, by answer, the facts constituting his defense or objection to the tax and the penalties thereon, and by § 109 (p. 570) there can be no refuge in technicalities, nor any escape from the payment of a proper tax, but, if the lands “have been partially, unfairly or unequally” assessed, the court may reduce the amount of taxes, and give judgment accordingly.” The doctrine of that decision has been followed by us in

1928The property owner is nowhere in this law invited to appear and make objections, if any he may have, until we reach §105 (p. 568), where he is accorded the right to appear and set forth, by answer, the facts constituting his defense or objection to the tax and the penalties thereon, and by § 109 (p. 570) there can be no refuge in technicalities, nor any escape from the payment of a proper tax, but, if the lands “have been partially, unfairly or unequally” assessed, the court may reduce the amount of taxes, and give judgment accordingly.” The doctrine of that decision has been followed by us in

1928The property owner is nowhere in this law invited to appear and make objections, if any he may have, until we reach §105 (p. 568), where he is accorded the right to appear and set forth, by answer, the facts constituting his defense or objection to the tax and the penalties thereon, and by § 109 (p. 570) there can be no refuge in technicalities, nor any escape from the payment of a proper tax, but, if the lands “have been partially, unfairly or unequally” assessed, the court may reduce the amount of taxes, and give judgment accordingly.” The doctrine of that decision has been followed by us in

1928The property owner is nowhere in this law invited to appear and make objections, if any he may have, until we reach §105 (p. 568), where he is accorded the right to appear and set forth, by answer, the facts constituting his defense or objection to the tax and the penalties thereon, and by § 109 (p. 570) there can be no refuge in technicalities, nor any escape from the payment of a proper tax, but, if the lands “have been partially, unfairly or unequally” assessed, the court may reduce the amount of taxes, and give judgment accordingly.” The doctrine of that decision has been followed by us in

1909Co., 21 Wash. 427 , 58 Pac. 576 , upon which counsel for respondent relies.

1909Co., 21 Wash. 427 , 58 Pac. 576 , upon which counsel for respondent relies.