Tingey v. Haisch

¶1 — Petitioner attorney David Tingey performed legal services for respondents Lloyd and Lucy Haisch (hereinafter Haisch) on an hourly fee basis without *655a written fee agreement. Tingey challenges a Court of Appeals decision holding that his action to collect those fees is not governed by the RCW 4.16.040(2) six-year limitation for “[a]n account receivable incurred in the ordinary course of business.”1 Tingey argues that the term “account receivable” has a plain meaning in Washington law and that the Court of Appeals, after improperly finding the term to be ambiguous, derived for the term an…