Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Swain v. Colton
Citations: 44 Wash. App. 204; 721 P.2d 990Docket: No. 6858-7-III
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; June 24, 1986; Washington; State Appellate Court
The case addresses whether the 1983 amendment to RCW 19.86.090, which increased maximum treble damages from $1,000 to $10,000, can be applied retroactively. The court ruled negatively, reversing the damages award. The Swains, who entered into a "Profit Savings Plan" with Mr. Colton for tax avoidance purposes, sustained damages totaling $3,575.90 after the IRS disallowed their deductions. They filed a consumer protection action against Mr. Colton, resulting in a bench trial where the court awarded them treble damages under the amended statute. The core issue was the retroactive application of the 1983 amendment to Mr. Colton's actions predating the amendment. The court referenced Nyby v. Allied Fid. Ins. Co., which established that the 1983 amendment applies prospectively only, and it reiterated the principle that the Washington Consumer Protection Act does not apply retroactively. No legislative intent was found to support retroactivity, and applying the treble damage provision, which is penal in nature, retroactively was determined to be erroneous. Both parties sought attorney fees, with the Swains also requesting sanctions for a frivolous appeal; these requests were denied. The court noted that Mr. Colton, as the prevailing party, could not benefit from the attorney fee provision, while the Swains, not prevailing on appeal, were likewise precluded from recovering fees. The decision was affirmed by the concurrence of Judges Green and Munson, with a denial of review by the Supreme Court on September 2, 1986. The case reinforces the principle that civil liability provisions, like the Consumer Protection Act, should not be applied retroactively when there is no clear legislative intent.