Opinion Information Sheet

			

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

PATRICK A. WILLIAMS and                     )
ANDREA HARRIS, his wife, and                )
ANDREA HARRIS as guardian for               )
ELENA-GENEVIEVE HARRIS, a                   )
minor child, and JOSHUA HARRIS,             )
a minor child,                              )
                                            )
                      Petitioners,          )       No. 85570-6
                                            )
       v.                                   )       En Banc 
                                            )
FESSEHA K. TILAYE and JANE                  )
DOE TILAYE, his wife, and the               )
marital community composed thereof, )
and MAMUYE A. AYELEKA, d.b.a. )
ORANGE CAB 485 and JANE DOE                 )
AYELEKA, his wife, and the marital          )
community composed thereof,                 )
                                            )
                      Respondents.          )       Filed March 8, 2012
______________________________ )

       CHAMBERS, J.  --  This case involves two different statutory schemes  

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

awarding attorney fees.  One scheme, RCW 7.06.050-.060, discourages frivolous 
appeals from mandatory arbitration.  It does so by providing a penalty for parties 
that appeal a mandatory arbitration decision by requesting a trial de novo and do no 
better at the trial de novo than in arbitration.  The other scheme, RCW 4.84.250-
.300, encourages parties to settle before going to court in cases where the amount in 
controversy is $10,000 or less.  It does so in part by allowing a plaintiff to recover 
attorney fees if the plaintiff makes an offer of settlement at least 10 days before the 
initial trial, the offer is rejected, and the plaintiff recovers more than was offered. 
The question is whether the second scheme may be invoked for the first time 10 
days before a trial de novo, rather than 10 days before the arbitration hearing, by a 
plaintiff that appeals an arbitration decision.  
       Here, after receiving no award in mandatory arbitration, plaintiffs Patrick 
Williams and Andrea Harris requested a trial de novo.  Before the trial de novo, but 
after the arbitration decision, they each made offers of settlement for less than 
$10,000, which were not accepted by the defendants.  After success at the trial de 
novo, the plaintiffs applied for and received prevailing party attorney fees under 
RCW 4.84.250.  Harris and Williams argue that although they offered to settle for 
under $10,000 after the mandatory arbitration, RCW 4.84.250-.300 allows them to 
recover attorney fees as long as they made their offers 10 days before the trial de 
novo.  We disagree.  We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that RCW 4.84.250-
.300, which is designed to encourage prompt settlement of small claims, applies 
only to a plaintiff that seeks recovery of $10,000 or less and makes an offer of 

                                               2 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

settlement 10 days before the initial hearing whether it is a trial or an arbitration.  
                                                 FACTS
       On December 25, 2005, a cab driven by Fesseha Tilaye collided with the car 
in which Harris and Williams were traveling. Harris and Williams contended that 
while both vehicles were southbound on Interstate 5, Tilaye had overcorrected, lost 
control, and caused the collision.  Before taking any legal action, they offered to 
settle any claims of liability for over $20,000 each. When the offers were refused, 
Harris and Williams filed suit in superior court.  The case then proceeded to 
mandatory arbitration.  Harris and Williams lost and received no award at 
arbitration.  Their lawyer declined to appeal by requesting a trial de novo and 
withdrew from the case.  Because of the posture of their case, Harris and Williams 
had some difficulty obtaining new counsel, but eventually found an attorney willing 
to represent them.  Before the trial de novo, Harris offered to settle her claims for 
$9,000.  Williams offered to settle for $3,900.  Both offers were refused, and the 
case proceeded to a three day de novo bench trial.  The trial judge awarded Harris
$20,512 and Williams $7,482. 
       Harris and Williams sought attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250.  The 
statutory scheme in RCW 4.84.250-.300 allows reasonable attorney fees to a 
plaintiff in an action for $10,000 or less if the plaintiff offers to settle at least 10
days before trial, the offer is rejected, and the plaintiff recovers more at trial than 
was offered.  See RCW 4.84.250-.300.  The trial court found that because Harris 
and Williams had made offers of settlement for under $10,000 before the trial de 

                                               3 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

novo, and they had recovered more at trial than they had offered, they were entitled 
to attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250.  The court awarded Harris $49,847.50 and 
Williams $25,722.00 in reasonable attorney fees and costs.  The Court of Appeals 
reversed the trial court's award of fees, reasoning that when the attorney fees 
scheme in RCW 4.84.250-.300 is applied to mandatory arbitration, the arbitration is 
equivalent to the original trial, and the trial de novo is equivalent to an appeal.  
Williams v. Tilaye, noted at 158 Wn. App. 1001, 2010 WL 3835228, at *2-3.  Since 
Harris and Williams did not make any offer of settlement prior to arbitration, the 
Court of Appeals held they did not successfully invoke the statutory scheme and 
were therefore not entitled to attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250.  Id. Harris and 
Williams appealed, and we accepted review.  Williams v. Tilaye, 171 Wn.2d 1019, 
253 P.3d 393 (2011).
                                                       DISCUSSION
       I.  Standard of Review
       Resolution of this case requires interpreting, and if possible harmonizing, two 
statutes granting reasonable attorney fees under certain circumstances.  Statutory 
interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo.  State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 
342, 346, 68 P.3d 282 (2003).  Interpreting statutes requires the court to discern and 
implement the legislature's intent.  State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 
(2003).
       II. Attorney Fees for Claims of $10,000 or Less in RCW 4.84.250-.300
       Generally, each party in a civil action must bear its own attorney fees.  

                                               4 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

Cosmopolitan Eng'g Grp., Inc. v. Ondeo Degremont, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 292, 296, 
149 P.3d 666 (2006).  RCW 4.84.250 is an exception to this general rule; it allows 
reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party in any action where $10,000 or less is 
claimed by the pleading party, exclusive of costs.1 RCW 4.84.250.  To be a 

prevailing party under the statute a plaintiff must (1) seek recovery of $10,000 or 
less, (2) make an offer of settlement at least 10 days before trial, and (3) recover as 
much or more than it offered in settlement. RCW 4.84.250, .260.  Alternatively, the 
defendant can be the prevailing party if either the plaintiff recovers nothing or the 
defendant makes an offer 10 days or more before trial and the plaintiff recovers as 
much or less than that offer.  RCW 4.84.270.  Finally, under RCW 4.84.290, "the 
prevailing party on appeal shall be considered the prevailing party for the purpose of 
applying the provisions of RCW 4.84.250."  These statutes have multiple purposes 
of encouraging out-of-court settlements, penalizing parties who unjustifiably bring 
or resist small claims, and enabling a party to pursue a meritorious small claim 
without seeing the award diminished by legal fees.  Beckmann v. Spokane Transit 
Auth., 107 Wn.2d 785, 788, 733 P.2d 960 (1987) (citing Valley v. Hand, 38 Wn. 
App. 170, 684 P.2d 1341 (1984); Northside Auto Serv., Inc. v. Consumers United 

1 The statute confusingly states that "the amount pleaded by the prevailing party as hereinafter 
defined" must be less than $10,000.  RCW 4.84.250 (emphasis added).  But the prevailing party 
as defined can, depending on whether or how much the plaintiff recovers, be the defendant.  RCW 
4.84.270.  Since in most cases the defendant is not pleading any amount, the statute might more 
accurately read "the amount in controversy" or "the amount pleaded by the plaintiff."  In fact, this 
court has interpreted the statute in just this way. Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wn.2d 491, 502, 951 
P.2d 761 (1998) ("Attorneys fees under RCW 4.84.250 are to be awarded to the prevailing party 
if the pleading party sought damages, exclusive of costs, of $10,000 or less." (citing RCW 
4.84.250) (emphasis added)).
                                               5 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

Ins. Co., 25 Wn. App. 486, 492, 607 P.2d 890 (1980)).
       III. Attorney Fees in Mandatory Arbitration under RCW 7.06.060
       The mandatory arbitration scheme is another exception to the general rule that 
each party bears its own attorney fees; it also provides for reasonable attorney fees 
under certain circumstances.  Mandatory arbitration was established by the 
legislature in 1979.2  Laws of 1979, ch. 103, §§ 1-10. Mandatory arbitration is 

authorized by the legislature at the option of each county and applies to claims 
where the claimant limits the amount claimed to $50,000 or less.3 After the 

arbitrator files a decision, either party may request a "trial de novo."  RCW 
7.06.050(1).  If a party requests a trial de novo, but fails at trial to improve upon its
arbitration award, the court will assess costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert 
witness expenses against that party.  RCW 7.06.060(1), (2).  Between arbitration 
and a trial de novo, the party not requesting a trial de novo can make an offer of 
compromise.  RCW 7.06.050(1)(a).  If the offer of compromise is refused, the offer 
replaces any arbitration award for the purposes of determining whether the party 
who requested a trial de novo improved its position.  RCW 7.06.050(1)(b).  
Importantly, under this attorney fees scheme, only a party requesting a trial de novo 
is at risk of having reasonable attorney fees assessed against it.  The purpose of the 
rule awarding attorney fees in this context is to discourage meritless appeals of 
arbitration awards.  Wiley v. Rehak, 143 Wn.2d 339, 348, 20 P.3d 404 (2001)

2 The attorney fees scheme in RCW 4.84.250-.300 was first enacted in 1973 and has been 
amended several times.  Laws of 1973, ch. 84, §§ 1-7.
3 All civil actions are subject to arbitration where the amount in controversy is no more than 
$15,000 or up to $50,000 if approved by the county's superior court.  RCW 7.06.020(1).
                                               6 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

(quoting Perkins Coie v. Williams, 84 Wn. App. 733, 737-38, 929 P.2d 1215 
(1997)).
       IV. Analysis
       We interpret statutes so as to give effect to the legislature's intent.  J.P., 149 
Wn.2d at 450.  To determine the intent of the legislature in adopting legislation, we 
read a statutory provision in context with the whole statutory scheme and related 
statutes.  See Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 11-12, 
43 P.3d 4 (2002).
       The statutes providing for attorney fees for small claims and for mandatory 
arbitration were adopted at different times and for different reasons.  As we have 
said, the former is to discourage those who unjustifiably bring or resist claims for 
small amounts while the latter is to discourage unwarranted appeals from mandatory 
arbitration.  Mandatory arbitration is intended to provide a relatively expedient
procedure to resolve claims where the plaintiff is willing to limit the amount 
claimed.  Mandatory arbitrations are processed under the supervision of the superior 
court with discovery, hearings on the merits, and a procedure to reduce the 
arbitrator's award to judgment.  See MAR 1.3, 4.2, 5.1, 6.3. If there was no 
disincentive for requesting a trial de novo following the arbitration, mandatory 
arbitration itself could become just another procedural step before trial.  As Tilaye 
points out, mandatory arbitration would be nothing more than a dress rehearsal for 
the real trial with each side getting a good look at the other's case.  
       Under RCW 7.06.060, only the party requesting the trial de novo is at risk of 

                                               7 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

paying the other party's attorney fees. The party requesting the trial de novo must 
improve its position or pay its opponent's attorney fees.   RCW 7.06.060(1).  By 
this mechanism, the nonappealing party is compensated for having been put through 
a useless appeal and the attorney fees operate as a disincentive or penalty for a party 
that pursues a meritless appeal.  The penalty can be substantial.  But petitioners 
Harris and Williams contend that the threat of attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250 
can be employed by the appealing party against the nonappealing party for the first 
time on an appeal from arbitration.  In other words, they argue the plaintiff may 
invoke the statutory scheme by making an offer of settlement under RCW 4.84.280 
for the first time after arbitration but 10 days before trial de novo.           If the 
legislature had intended that RCW 4.84.250 be applicable to mandatory arbitration
in the manner asserted by the petitioners, the deterrent for unwarranted requests for 
trial de novo would be severely compromised. An unsuccessful plaintiff could 
always request a trial de novo and then shift the risk to the nonrequesting defendant 
by offering to settle for under $10,000.  The defendant who prevailed at the 
arbitration hearing and did not request a trial de novo would then be at risk of 
paying reasonable attorney fees.  Since the reasonable attorney fees could be 
substantially more than the underlying claim (for example here the combined fees 
for Harris and Williams were approximately $75,000), there would be an inordinate
incentive for the defendant to settle.  Applying RCW 4.84.250 to the trial de novo in 
the manner proposed by the petitioners would in fact create an incentive to appeal 
an arbitration award.  

                                               8 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

       Our Courts of Appeal have been careful to limit each statutory scheme for 
prevailing party attorney fees to its appropriate application.  The Court of Appeals 
has routinely held in the context of small claims in district court that a trial de novo 
in superior court is an appeal for purposes of applying RCW 4.84.250-.300.  In 
Hertz v. Riebe, 86 Wn. App. 102, 105, 936 P.2d 24 (1997), the Riebes sought 
attorney fees on appeal "based on their settlement offer after the district court 
judgment, but before the trial de novo in superior court."  The court held that the 
Riebes were not entitled to attorney fees because the settlement offer was not made 
"10 days before the district court trial" rather than the trial de novo.  Id. at 107.  In 
Valley, 38 Wn. App. at 172, the court expressly held "the proceedings in the 
Superior Court constituted an appeal within the meaning of RCW 4.84.290, even 
though scope of review is trial de novo."4 There are numerous other examples from 

the Court of Appeals treating the trial de novo in superior court as the first "appeal" 
for purposes of applying RCW 4.84.250-.300 in a small claims context.  E.g., 
Kalich v. Clark, 152 Wn. App. 544, 551, 215 P.3d 1049 (2009) (authorizing fee 
award for fees and costs "incurred appealing the district court judgment" (citing 
McConnell v. Mothers Work, Inc., 131 Wn. App. 525, 531, 128 P.3d 128 (2006))); 

4 RCW 4.84.290 states, "[T]he prevailing party on appeal shall be considered the prevailing party 
for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.84.250."  Valley contradicts Hertz to the 
extent that it holds an award of attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.290 does not require an 
offer of settlement at all.  Valley, 38 Wn. App. at 173.  Hertz states that, to recover fees, the 
prevailing party on appeal still has to have made an offer before the initial district court action.  
Hertz, 86 Wn. App. at 107.  To be a prevailing party under RCW 4.84.290, a plaintiff must have 
made an offer of settlement 10 days before the initial hearing.  This rule accords with our decision 
today and will be clear and easy to follow for courts and litigants in the future.  We overrule 
Valley to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.
                                               9 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

Last Chance Riding Stable, Inc. v. Stephens, 66 Wn. App. 710, 714, 832 P.2d 1353 
(1992) (reversing improper award of attorney fees on "appeal" to superior court).
       The same logic has been followed by the Court of Appeals in the arbitration 
context.  In Singer v. Etherington, 57 Wn. App. 542, 546, 789 P.2d 108, 802 P.2d 
133 (1990), the court directly addressed the question at issue in this case, holding 
that "[a] mandatory arbitration proceeding is treated as the original trial when 
applying RCW 4.84.290.[5] The trial de novo is the appeal."  In Thomas-Kerr v. 

Brown, 114 Wn. App. 554, 558, 59 P.3d 120 (2002), the Court of Appeals 
reiterated that, by analogy with small claims cases, "[a] trial de novo following 
arbitration is treated as an appeal" for purposes of applying RCW 4.84.250-.300.  
       The petitioners contend that these cases are no longer good law following this 
court's decision in Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wn.2d 518, 79 P.3d 1154 
(2003).  They also claim that the Court of Appeals decision in Singer is incorrect 
because it would render certain statutory provisions superfluous.  See Singer, 57 
Wn. App. at 546.  Finally, they argue that because RCW 4.84.280 states that offers
of settlement must be served on the opposing party "at least ten days prior to trial,"6

5 "If the case is appealed, the prevailing party on appeal shall be considered the prevailing party 
for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.84.250."  RCW 4.84.290.
6 RCW 4.84.280 states in full:

              Offers of settlement shall be served on the adverse party in the manner 
       prescribed by applicable court rules at least ten days prior to trial. Offers of 
       settlement shall not be served until thirty days after the completion of the service 
       and filing of the summons and complaint. Offers of settlement shall not be filed or 
       communicated to the trier of the fact until after judgment, at which time a copy of 
       said offer of settlement shall be filed for the purposes of determining attorneys' 
       fees as set forth in RCW 4.84.250.
                                              10 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

and a trial is not mandatory arbitration, the requirement cannot apply to 
mandatory arbitration.  All three arguments fail.
       First, Malted Mousse does not address the question presented here.  It states 
that a trial de novo is "conducted as if the parties never proceeded to arbitration."  
Malted Mousse, 150 Wn.2d at 528.  But this has no bearing on whether a trial de 
novo should be treated as an appeal in the context of RCW 4.84.250 attorney fees.  
Indeed, the Malted Mousse opinion expressly refers to "the trial de novo appeal 
process from mandatory arbitration."  Id. at 522. As this court explained long ago 
in the context of an appeal from a municipal court to superior court, "the trial of the 
case in the superior court de novo, as it must have been so tried upon the appeal that 
was taken thereto, was an exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court 
as the law contemplated, and was not the exercise of original jurisdiction by the 
superior court."  City of Camas v. Kiggins, 120 Wash. 40, 46, 206 P. 951 (1922)
(emphasis omitted). As Camas suggests, the fact that a trial de novo takes place in 
superior court as if no prior proceeding had occurred is irrelevant to whether the 
trial de novo is considered an appeal from a prior proceeding.  Id.  
       Second, the decision in Singer does not render any statutory language 
superfluous.  In Singer the court held that a trial de novo was an appeal for the 
purposes of applying RCW 4.84.290.  Singer, 57 Wn. App. at 546.  RCW 4.84.290 
states in relevant part:

              If the case is appealed, the prevailing party on appeal shall be 
       considered the prevailing party for the purpose of applying the 
       provisions of RCW 4.84.250: PROVIDED, That if, on appeal, a retrial 

                                              11 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

       is ordered, the court ordering the retrial shall designate the prevailing 
       party, if any, for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 
       4.84.250.
The petitioners argue that because a superior court in a trial de novo cannot order a 
rearbitration, the provision for ordering a retrial is superfluous and meaningless.  
The argument fails on its face because the provision does not require a retrial but is 
contingent upon a retrial being ordered.  If there is no retrial, the provision does not 
apply.  The fact that a superior court cannot order a retrial from a trial de novo does 
not render the provision superfluous.
       Third, the petitioners' definitional arguments also fail. The petitioners offer 
definitions of "trial" and "arbitration" from Black's Law Dictionary to show that a 
trial is not mandatory arbitration.  They also rely on the fact that the legislature in 
another statute refers to both a "trial" and "mandatory arbitration."7 If the 

petitioners' argument is accepted, then RCW 4.84.250-.300 cannot apply at all to 
mandatory arbitration because mandatory arbitration is mentioned nowhere in the 
statutory scheme.  But the statute dealing with costs and attorney fees in the context 
of mandatory arbitration expressly states that "even though at the trial de novo the 
appealing party may have improved his or her position from the arbitration, this 
section does not preclude the prevailing party from recovering those costs and 
disbursements otherwise allowed under chapter 4.84 RCW, for both actions."  
RCW 7.06.060(3) (emphasis added).  Because RCW 7.06.060(3) plainly 

7 RCW 4.84.010 defines certain costs allowed to the prevailing party upon judgment.  RCW 
4.84.010(5) includes as costs expenses "incurred in obtaining reports and records, which are 
admitted into evidence at trial or in mandatory arbitration."  RCW 4.84.010(7) includes as costs 
"the reasonable expense of the transcription of depositions used at trial or at the mandatory 
arbitration."  
                                              12 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

contemplates that attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250-.300 are available in both 
mandatory arbitration and a trial de novo, it conflicts with the petitioners' 
interpretation of RCW 4.84.250-.300.  
       That conflict disappears under the rule established by the Court of Appeals 
that, like small claims in district court, "[a] trial de novo following arbitration is 
treated as an appeal" for purposes of applying RCW 4.84.250-.300.  Thomas-Kerr, 
114 Wn. App. at 558. If the trial de novo is treated as the appeal, and the 
mandatory arbitration as the original "trial," then the two schemes can operate in 
harmony.  
       The petitioners' interpretation would also skew the incentives created by both 
statutory schemes and frustrate their purposes. Again, reasonable attorney fees 
assessed against the party that appeals an arbitration award and fails to improve its 
position on appeal are meant to discourage meritless appeals of arbitration awards.  
Wiley, 143 Wn.2d at 348 (quoting Perkins Coie, 84 Wn. App. 737-38).  If, as the 
petitioners argue, RCW 4.84.250 applies where offers of settlement are made for 
the first time after arbitration, a plaintiff dissatisfied with the arbitration result, 
instead of hesitating to appeal for fear that attorney fees may be imposed if the 
plaintiff does not improve its position, could shift the risk in large part to the 
defendant by offering to settle for $10,000 or less 10 days before the trial de novo.  
Because the nonappealing defendant would then be faced with the risk of substantial 
attorney fees, there would be an enormous incentive for the defendant to settle 
relatively cheaply rather than risk an adverse result on appeal.  Rather than 

                                              13 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

discouraging meritless appeals from arbitration, this procedure would create an 
incentive to appeal from arbitration.  Further, this interpretation would be perverse 
because it would almost always benefit plaintiffs and almost always disfavor 
defendants.
                                       CONCLUSION
       We hold that in order to invoke the attorney fees scheme under RCW 
4.84.250-.300, a plaintiff must make an offer of settlement 10 days before the initial 
hearing whether it is a trial or arbitration.  Because the petitioners in this case did 
not make an offer at least 10 days before the mandatory arbitration in this case, they 
are not entitled to attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250-.300.  We affirm the Court of 
Appeals.

                                              14 

Williams (Patrick) v. Tilaye (Fesseha), No. 85570-6

AUTHOR:
        Justice Tom Chambers

WE CONCUR:
        Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen                  Justice James M. Johnson

        Justice Charles W. Johnson                       Justice Debra L. Stephens

                                                         Justice Charles K. Wiggins

        Justice Susan Owens                              Gerry L. Alexander, Justice Pro Tem.

        Justice Mary E. Fairhurst

                                              15