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.
Pearl v. Greenlee
Citations: 76 Wash. App. 338; 887 P.2d 405Docket: No. 33594-4-I
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; December 12, 1994; Washington; State Appellate Court
Dr. Frank Mesher appeals a superior court order that quashed his medical lien of $4,040 related to a settlement from a personal injury case involving Sam Pearl, who was injured in 1987. Pearl initially sued Costco Wholesale in 1990, and the case settled for $25,000 in 1992. Mesher filed his lien before the settlement funds were disbursed, claiming rights under RCW 60.44.010. Pearl contested the lien, arguing Mesher did not provide medical services, leading to Greenlee, Pearl's attorney, withholding payment of the proceeds pending resolution of the lien. In October 1992, Pearl filed a motion to quash the lien, citing the expiration of the one-year statutory period for enforcement of such liens per RCW 60.44.060. The court ultimately quashed Mesher's lien on August 11, 1993, and ordered the $4,040 to be paid to Pearl. Mesher's subsequent motions to revise the order were denied, reaffirming the quashing of the lien. The court found that Mesher did not enforce his lien within the required timeframe, as more than a year had elapsed since the lien was filed without any action taken by him. The ruling underscores the burden on lien claimants to strictly comply with statutory requirements to maintain their claims. Mesher argues that the filing of Pearl's action tolled the 1-year statutory period for enforcing his lien, relying on J.R. Simplot Co. v. Vogt. In Simplot, the court held that a lien claimant's rights were preserved when the primary action was filed within the statutory period, allowing a counterclaim filed thereafter to remain valid. However, Mesher's situation differs significantly; he failed to file a counterclaim before the trial court's final adjudication, thus not initiating a "suit at law" as required. Unlike Bates in Simplot, who timely filed his counterclaims, Mesher filed his counterclaim only after his notice of appeal, at which point jurisdiction had shifted to the appellate court. Consequently, the trial court's decision to quash the medical lien was upheld, as Mesher did not act within the limitation period. Reconsideration was denied and further review was not granted.